Fishing Industry

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

It is a pleasure to do that. That respect is something we all share and exists in fishing communities, whoever they send to the House to represent them.

North Shields fishing port is one of the most important ports on the east coast—certainly the most important port between the Humber and the border—and its regeneration over the years is taking shape with good-quality houses and some excellent restaurants. However, it is still a working fishing port that is responsible for hundreds of local jobs, and boats come from all over the United Kingdom to use its facilities, particularly the fish market.

There is a constant need for regeneration and renewal in such a historical place. The Western Quay regeneration is complete, but work needs to be done on the fish quay where fish are landed. I know from experience that schemes require the involvement of all sorts of different bodies, including the fish quay company, the local authority, the MMO and the Port of Tyne—it previously would have involved the development agency. European funding plays an important part, too.

I therefore have two questions for the Minister. First, in the past, regeneration has been agreed by all parties—until the question of money is raised, when they look out of the window or stare at their shoes. I am not asking the Minister for money. I am asking for a commitment on behalf of all the Government agencies that might be involved to use their good offices—and resources, if they have them—to ensure that that regeneration goes ahead. If it does not, the industry in the area could be in trouble.

Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the European Commission has launched a major investigation into previous funding in the region because of issues of governance? Is it true that the Commission has refused to sign off the €464 million for the region? What are the implications for schemes such as the fish quay at North Shields?

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, because it is potentially important to the fishing industry. I met the Business Secretary on the subject a few days ago. There is an urgency to Ministers’ devising a mechanism that is acceptable to the European Commission to enable us to access funds that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can access.

Waste Management Sites (Fires)

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today.

The issue I want to raise is that of fires at waste management sites. This is a problem that literally stinks to high heaven. Fires at waste management sites can have a far-reaching impact, way beyond a 999 call and a few hours’ attendance by the local fire crew and their appliance. They can come with a very hefty financial cost. They often demand a multi-agency response and, worryingly, the resulting fall-out can blight communities.

Today, I want to tell you about a fire at the waste management site in the village of Nantyglo, in my constituency that burned for 10 days in January 2013. A small mountain of waste—more than 200 tonnes worth—caught aflame. The smoke billowing from the fire made the lives of the residents in the nearby streets a misery. It clogged the air, seeped into washing hanging on the line, and filled homes and cars with a noxious smell. One of the neighbours with asthma and emphysema could not go out of the house at all for the whole time of the fire. Such waste sites store everything from plastic containers and solvent-based paints to oily rags and aerosol cans, and the burning of chemicals trapped people in their own home. The resident with respiratory illnesses loves the area and keeps her home clean and tidy, but now she feels that she will have to move out if there is a prospect of future fires. That is not right.

When home for the long weekend, I caught sight of a big smoke cloud over Nantyglo from my kitchen window, and it was held there for 10 days by the many rainclouds above. The air was acrid, and clearly, the matter needed urgent attention.

After trying to understand who was co-ordinating matters, I got stuck in and called a multi-agency meeting to try and take things forward. Everybody eventually pulled together. Natural Resources Wales had stationed a staff member by the site to oversee and co-ordinate. The fire service went back and forth to keep a lid on the still smouldering fire and Public Health Wales set in place air quality measuring kit. It was a very small, enclosed site, but fair do’s, Blaenau Gwent council helped a lot by making available some nearby land to shift hundreds of tonnes of waste on to. That enabled the eventual control of the fire. Months later, the bill for the operation was estimated to reach £70,000. That is just one example of the damage and demands on public services, as well as the insurance industry, that such fires can cause, and it is one of many.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject, as there was a fire lasting six months in a pile of carpet waste in my constituency. He mentioned insurance and cost. In the case of my constituency, the operating firm is in liquidation. Ought there not to be some system of insurance or bonds that ensures that if there is nobody left to pay, there is some money in the bank to deal with the terrible consequences that our constituents have to face?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing the debate on reducing fires at waste management sites. I am delighted to see in their places other hon. Members who have concerns in that regard, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who has raised the issue with me on previous occasions and will continue to do so until he is satisfied, as I am sure the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent will. Given the fire at the A. Lewis Waste Paper Collections Ltd site in Nantyglo in his constituency in January 2013, to which he referred, the subject is of understandable concern to his constituents, but it is also a concern to many people in the United Kingdom.

Waste management policy, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is largely a devolved matter. The Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, to which he referred in relation to that incident, are responsible for policy and regulation of Welsh waste sites respectively. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain what the Government and others are doing to address this important issue in England. We will return to some of the issues he raised, which are no doubt important across all jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.

The Government recognise that the public and the resource management industry have legitimate concerns about fires at waste management sites. The fires can involve large volumes of waste burning for prolonged periods. They cause unacceptable impacts on people, the environment and local infrastructure. Responding to waste fires places a huge strain on the resources not just of the fire and rescue service and the Environment Agency, but of the police, local authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and public health organisations. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the substantial cost of waste fires. The firefighting costs alone can be substantial, but as he pointed out, the costs range much more widely than that. For example, the cost to the London Fire Brigade of keeping safe just one waste site that has experienced repeated fires has been in the region of £650,000. I agree completely with him that those are unacceptable costs to the public purse. Repeated waste fires also have an impact on the insurance costs for the resource management sector as a whole—there is also an impact on the businesses of those who are following best practice.

When I came into this post last October, there was a long-running fire at the waste site near Berwick-upon-Tweed, and recurring fires at a waste site near Bromley in London. I met the then chair of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith of Finsbury, in December to stress the importance of early intervention to tackle waste crime and poor performance, which are often contributory factors in waste fires.

The Environment Agency set up a waste fires task and finish group last year to review actions needed to address the risk of fires at the waste sites that it regulates. As part of that work, the agency conducted a screening exercise to identify sites where there was an increased risk of a significant fire and/or sites that posed a significant hazard to people and the environment should a fire break out, so we are looking at risk and likely severity of impact. That screening exercise has identified 80 waste sites in England that would pose a very high risk of impact if a fire were to occur. The agency is taking action to reduce risks at those sites to acceptable levels, and I am seeking regular updates on progress.

The Environment Agency has identified a further 215 medium-risk waste sites. Local Environment Agency teams will prioritise appropriate action to reduce the risk at those sites in the same way as for the initial 80 high-risk sites. Last year, the agency also wrote to more than 7,000 waste operators to remind them of their regulatory obligations to control the risks and impacts of fires at their sites, and issued a technical guidance note setting out appropriate measures and performance standards for preventing waste fires. The agency guidance is endorsed by the Chief Fire Officers Association in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, to get the benefit of that technical expertise across the sector.

The Chief Fire Officers Association brought the waste industry, the enforcing authorities and other stakeholders together in a forum last year, as the hon. Gentleman said, to develop a road map towards ensuring a sustained reduction in fires in waste facilities. One outcome of that forum has been the development by the resource management sector of new draft fire safety management guidance and best practice, to be published later this year, so the suggestion that he rightly makes has been taken forward, and I am pleased that he is adding his support. In fact, his securing of this debate provides renewed impetus and ensures that we keep pushing forward on that work.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The lessons learned document for the fire in my constituency contained, as one of the lessons, this:

“Review the merits of…mandatory insurance”,

meaning that proof of insurance would need to be produced when a permit is issued. That was referred to as something to be determined under the national action plan. Will it be considered in the discussions that my hon. Friend the Minister has described?

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. That is one of the areas I have been discussing with the agency. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent raised concerns about the pressure on the insurance industry as a result of the situation. We need to look at all these issues in the round. Certainly that is an issue that we will continue to discuss and address to see whether it would be fruitful to put in some more work in that direction.

The Chief Fire Officers Association has been working closely with the Environment Agency. The organisations are in the process of signing a national memorandum, which will promote the co-operation and data-sharing that the hon. Gentleman is keen to see, and which will set out how local Environment Agency and fire and rescue teams will collaborate and carry out site visits to ensure effective fire prevention.

In many cases, fires at waste sites are linked to poor operator compliance. This week, I have written to waste industry representatives outlining a series of Government and Environment Agency proposals focused on waste crime and tackling poor performance at waste management sites. Those proposals, which were developed in part in response to calls by the industry for more robust enforcement action, include: increased agency intervention at poor-performing sites; a review of the powers for suspending or revoking environmental permits; increased regulatory fees paid by operators of poorly performing sites; greater agency scrutiny of newly permitted sites; and revisions to the systems for assessing operator competence, which is another crucial angle. We have talked about the financial risks, but a thorough assessment of operator competence is important in preparation for the opening of new sites and the entry of new businesses to the sector, because it is a technical matter. We want to see people acting in the sector, creating jobs and making better use of available resources as part of our move towards a circular economy, but we have to ensure that they are technically competent to do so. We also propose to ensure that environmental permits contain minimum standards for the storage of combustible materials. I have invited representatives of the resource industry and the profession to discuss how we and the agency can take our proposals forward, because the Government and the regulator cannot do that alone.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the means of recording and reporting on fires at waste sites. Each local fire and rescue authority provides the Department for Communities and Local Government with information about all incidents that it attends, including fires at waste and recycling sites, through the incident reporting system, which covers England and Wales. The data gathered include details of the area of damage caused by the fire. The Environment Agency separately collects reports from the operators of permitted sites on the scale and nature of any environmental impacts associated with fires. Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency adopt a similar approach to recording fires at permitted sites in Wales and Scotland.

We will work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that the data collected by the Environment Agency and the fire and rescue authorities are as consistent and robust as possible. I acknowledge that there have been some recent high-profile fires, although Environment Agency figures show that the total number of fires at regulated waste sites over the past 10 years has remained relatively constant at some 250 to 300 a year. Of course, constant is not as good as declining, so we want further progress. That sounds like a lot, but the majority are low-level fires—some of them are caused by electrical faults or equipment failure—that are put out quickly by operatives at the site without the need to call fire and rescue services. However, it is important for those to be recorded and form part of our information dataset.

Environment Agency statistics show that the number of serious or significant fires at waste sites during the past four years has been relatively stable at approximately 15 a year. The Environment Agency regulates more than 8,000 permitted sites that are involved in storing combustible waste. The 12 serious and significant fires that have occurred so far this year represent less than 0.2% of the sites that store combustible waste. We must not be complacent, however, and we must strive to prevent any such incidents from occurring. The waste and resource management sector, the regulators, the fire and rescue services and the Government are taking forward a range of actions to reduce serious waste fires. I welcome the positive and proactive approach that has been taken by all involved.

The hon. Gentleman made a valuable point when he mentioned the dissemination of best practice. The code of best practice and the memorandum of understanding to which I have referred show that the industry, the fire and rescue services and the environmental protection agencies are taking forward such best practice. The new proposals are designed to tackle rogue traders and poor performers who got into the industry without technical expertise, so I am pleased that he raised that. In many cases, the answer is extra investment in enforcement and early intervention to prevent outbreaks of fire, however small, and the most serious ones must be dealt with.

The hon. Gentleman asked about planning and permitting, and we will consider those as part of our review. If the evidence base supports changes to those regimes, we will look at making those changes. He asked questions about local authority-managed sites and private sector sites. Given the answers he received to his parliamentary questions and the terms in which he raised them, I understand why he has drawn attention to the matter. There are a range of facilities, however, and the local authority sites do not necessarily operate with the same materials or deal with the same volumes as other sites do, so it is difficult to draw conclusions from the points he has raised, but that was an interesting contribution to the debate.

As Minister with responsibility for resources management, I will continue to work with the Environment Agency and encourage it to review the effectiveness of its approach to the enforcement of waste controls, and to consider what more can be done to reduce the incidence of serious waste fires.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

When the hon. Gentleman says “voluntary approach”, I assume that he is referring to water companies’ implementation of social tariffs. More companies are taking up the option of bringing in a social tariff, having consulted their customers about whether it is right for their area. The biggest thing we can do for people with regard to water bills is to keep the cost down. We have been clear on this matter in our messages to Ofwat. It has taken action and the companies have responded.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Was the Department’s press office correct in giving the impression last Friday that at least 20 staff will be retained at Alnwick after Steria’s Shared Services organisation moves its operations from there next June?

[Dan Rogerson]

My right hon. Friend is understandably taking a close interest in the future of what has been a very efficient office. As he knows, Shared Services, with Steria, has bid for contracts on which it was unsuccessful. However, other DEFRA teams at that location will continue to work there in situ.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the devastating impact that floods have had in the past. Some of his constituents will still be feeling the effects of what they went through at that time. Environment Agency staff work very hard—those who are directly involved in flood and coastal risk management and those from other areas in the agency who came in to support them during the recent extreme weather events. I have visited many of them in areas of the country that have been affected. As the chief executive takes forward the proposals to ensure that the agency meets the challenges of the future, I know that he will take account of all the skills and the expertise that it has and preserve them to ensure that we build on the work that has been done and keep everybody safe.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Environment Agency on waste fires.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

I have had three meetings with the Environment Agency on waste fires in the last six months, including a discussion on Tuesday this week with the noble Lord Smith of Finsbury, when we spoke about the fire at the waste site in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. The two previous occasions were a meeting on 30 October 2013, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the chief executive of the Environment Agency, Dr Paul Leinster, and a meeting on 27 November 2013 with the noble Lord Smith and Dr Leinster.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Bearing in mind that the Environment Agency failed to deal effectively with persistent and massive breaches of licensing conditions by Blackwater (North East) Ltd, leading to the Thrunton fire, surely the agency owes it to my constituents to remove the potentially polluting waste and charge the cost to Blackwater or its insurers, rather than the burden falling on the landowner who has done so much to help?

[Dan Rogerson]

My right hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising all the matters connected with that awful fire and the mismanagement of the site by the company. His constituents have been very lucky to have had him acting on their behalf. In my discussions with the agency, I have made it clear that we will do all we can to support all those who have been on the right side of this, but we need to consider carefully the correct method of making sure that the polluter pays in this instance.

Carpet Waste Fire (Thrunton)

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The story I have to put to the Minister this afternoon is one of gross disregard for the environment and for my constituents, inadequate regulation by the Environment Agency, and deplorable political pressure on the authorities not to act to protect my constituents. In raising this issue, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the personal interest they have taken in it since I raised it with them.

A fire of carpet waste has burned for almost six months on the site of an old brickworks at Thrunton in my constituency. The site is alongside the busy A697, and adjoining or close to it are 26 houses, some of them built for the brickworks’ staff. Some time after it closed in 2010, the owner, Mr Blythe, who has done everything he could to help deal with the situation, made it available to Blackwater (North East) Ltd for waste carpet storage, relying on the company to obtain and comply with the necessary approvals.

During the afternoon of 3 September 2013, the waste carpet at Thrunton caught fire. Fire crews rushed to the scene and started trying to tackle the fire. There was an enormous amount of smoke from the fire, completely blocking the adjacent A697. Traffic was diverted. The stench could be smelled up to 15 miles away, beyond Alnwick and Rothbury. Local residents shut their windows and doors and were told to stay inside. The fire quickly spread to bales of carpet both inside and outside the buildings where they were stored. Pouring water on the fire was cooling the outer surface of the burning carpet, but then a hard crust was forming and the water was running off, leaving the fire alight inside the bales. The building that housed some of the bales, part of the former brickworks, partly collapsed. Due to the volume of water and the lie of the land, the water running off from the fire crews’ efforts was also threatening the neighbouring watercourses and fishing lake.

The bales of carpet had been stored outside the area where they were permitted to be kept, which meant that instead of being on a hard concrete area, they were on porous ground that could soak up the contaminated run-off water. That ground covers the natural aquifer where water collects and feeds the local spring, which supplies water to the properties at Thrunton. Such was the danger to this supply that the control team decided that the fire could not be put out and would have to be managed while it burned itself out. The fire was finally judged to be out in the second week of February 2014.

There have been regular inspections of the site by officers from Northumberland’s fire and rescue service, the Environment Agency, the environmental health department, and Public Health England, as well as my own staff. A misting system was installed to damp down the fire, but that was problematic, and there had been several attempts to get it in place before November.

The landowner, Mr Blythe, has been proactively managing the fire himself throughout. Wearing breathing apparatus and using a digger, he has, with the agreement of the fire service, removed the burnt material from the fire that is outside the building and dampened it in the pools of water which had run off from the fire. Paying a contractor to do this work would have cost tens of thousands of pounds. Without Mr Blythe’s efforts, it is thought that the fire could have burned for two years longer. The operating company did nothing. The fire inside the building continues to burn. A multi-agency incident control team was set up involving Northumberland’s environmental health department, the fire service, the Environment Agency, and Public Health England.

Residents naturally wanted to know what substances they were being exposed to, and what the short, medium and long-term effects could be. The assurances they were given were hard to accept when they were having to keep their windows and doors shut at all times, turn off ventilation systems, and make alternative arrangements for drying their washing. We repeatedly asked for smoke testing but did not get it until January, nearly five months after the fire broke out. This lengthy battle over different issues has added unnecessarily to the stress and worry for my constituents.

The burnt material remains on site, and there is a continuing risk of contamination of local watercourses. One of the ongoing issues throughout this sorry saga has been who takes responsibility for removing the burnt material. Throughout the process, residents have been assured that it would be removed. At one point the Environment Agency proposed that the cost of waste removal could be shared with the county council, but the county council argued that responsibility for issuing the permits and for monitoring and enforcing them was held by the Environment Agency and so it should act to deal with the consequences.

The landlord has been left with about 3,000 tonnes of burnt material. To clear the site would cost at least £200,000. It will cost £500,000 if the waste analysis code requires it to be treated as hazardous, which is not yet clear.

The Environment Agency has resisted all calls for it to take action to clear the site and charge Blackwater, the operator, with the cost. It argues that the site operator should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I fear there is little hope of that happening. What confidence can we have that Blackwater will do anything? It has done nothing at all to deal with the fire or the pollution it has caused.

I turn now to the Environment Agency’s lack of enforcement of permit conditions. Blackwater’s business model involves taking waste carpet from a number of sources to be shredded and baled and then reused to surface equestrian arenas. It had a further plan, which never got anywhere, to make briquettes from a blend of carpet and wood bound with paraffin wax for biomass power stations.

On 21 June 2011, Blackwater was awarded a permit to operate as a

“Household, commercial and industrial waste transfer station with treatment”.

The first breaches of the permit were identified when the Environment Agency inspected the site in July 2011. It gave advice and guidance. There were subsequent breaches in September and December 2011 and March 2012. In fact, the first time there was an inspection that did not record any breaches was on 6 July 2012—but actually there was a breach. Material previously stored outside had been moved to storage bays, but those bays had been put up on part of the site that was outside the area covered by the permit—yet the agency accepted that.

From February 2013, the situation at the site deteriorated quickly, and the landlord became increasingly concerned about the breaches. In early February 2013, when he complained to the Environment Agency, it said that the site would be inspected in the next few weeks and that

“the landlord’s patience would be appreciated”.

At a site visit in March 2013, officials saw the waste being stored outside the shed in excess of the permitted tonnage by a large amount. On 20 March, they asked the operator for an action plan with a deadline of 3 April 2013 to deal with the issue. On 17 April, they agreed a new deadline. Blackwater then advised the Environment Agency that it would be relocating, but it did not. An action plan was received on 23 May, more than seven weeks after the original deadline. There is no approved management system in place for the site.

Too often it seems that the Environment Agency has accepted at face value information given to it by Blackwater. Deadlines passed and seem simply to have been revised. Storage bays were in place, but they were not within the area covered by the permit. The business was going to move, but it did not. Breaches of permit conditions were also identified at the business’s other site at Milfield, near Wooler in my constituency.

This company has been paid about £60 a tonne to take waste carpet, which has been stockpiled in amounts far greater than allowed and outside the areas for which the permit was given. There was only a very limited end-of-waste agreement. Complaints were made to the Environment Agency by Mr Blythe, his solicitors and neighbouring residents about Blackwater’s operations. The Environment Agency has now told me that it is pursuing enforcement action against Blackwater, but what was it doing before? Was it under any pressure to go easy on Blackwater?

It took a parliamentary question to establish that only one representation called on the Environment Agency not to take enforcement action, and it took a freedom of information request to get sight of the e-mail and careful study of the documents to establish who had sent it, because names are redacted. The e-mail reads:

“Hi Owen…See below from the excellent business which I sent you the EA papers for after your trip to Northumberland.

As you can see below the EA are trying to shut the business down even though its their non-processing of the licences which is the cause.

Time is of the essence now for financial reasons—please can you update me on any progress with EA? I am in London on tuesday and wednesday morning next week if we needed to meet.

Your urgent assistance in this is much appreciated.”

The Secretary of State did not reply until 5 August. His letter was headed by hand, “Dear Anne-Marie”, which somebody forgot to redact, which made it quite clear that the Conservative prospective candidate for the Berwick constituency had called on the Environment Agency to go easy on the company, which she thought was “excellent”, but was engaged in a serial failure to comply with environmental requirements. In fact, the Secretary of State detailed some of the failures in his letter, and urged that the company should work closely with the Environment Agency. It was an appalling failure of judgment for a political candidate to attempt to put pressure on the Environment Agency to go easy on a company flouting permit conditions, which are there to protect my constituents. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Department did nothing as a result of that representation to pressure the Environment Agency not to carry out its enforcement responsibilities.

The fact remains that the Environment Agency was, through its lack of enforcement, allowing the company to store combustible waste in ways which were bound to make a fire much more serious. I have asked the Environment Agency to clear the site and then claim against Blackwater’s public liability insurance, but it is not willing to attempt that course. Apparently, the Environment Agency would be happy to advise Mr Blythe on how best he could clear the site, but that would mean Mr Blythe having to find the funds to do so—up to £500,000—and then making a claim against Blackwater’s insurance, which might take years to settle.

If Blackwater fails to clear the site, its permit may well be revoked, but in that case, the problem would become one of contaminated land. The liability for restoring the land—in other words, for removing the burnt waste—might fall on Mr Blythe, as the landowner, and enforcement action could be taken against him for failing to deal with the contamination, despite all his work to try to deal with it. Is that fair? Of course it is not. I therefore ask the Minister to discuss that aspect of the problem with the Environment Agency.

Blackwater has apparently shown its bank statements to the Environment Agency, and has said that the business has no money to fund a clean-up operation. The company should have received well over £600,000 for taking carpet for recycling, yet no funds were set aside for dealing with the aftermath of potential disasters. Should there not be a bond system, such as existed until 2003, so that money is available for emergency clean-ups, given the increasing number of waste fires around the country? All the Environment Agency now does is to check the financial competence of the operator, a system which completely failed in this case. If something is not done, many more people will suffer as my constituents have done. I ask the Minister to see what he can do to get a happier outcome from this sorry story.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

Following our Welsh colleagues’ deliberations to mark St David’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the House gool Peran lowen—a happy St Piran’s day—for yesterday, on behalf of Cornish colleagues.

I was horrified to hear the story that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has shared with us. He has raised it several times in this place and elsewhere, and he is absolutely right to do so. The issues are very serious, and his points about the regulation of the Blackwater (North East) Ltd waste site are crucial ones for us to bear in mind as we consider the regulatory framework across the country.

I recognise how diligently my right hon. Friend has represented the interests of his constituents, many of whom have endured significant disruption to their lives and have had to contend with fears about the health effects of the fumes from the fire. I also recognise and commend the work of the site’s landowners, Mr and Mrs Blythe, in helping to extinguish the fire and to prevent pollution from the extinguished waste, as my right hon. Friend set out.

I welcome reports that the firefighting strategy and actions taken to control the run-off of firewater have so far proved effective and have prevented the contamination of both surface water and groundwater. I understand that Public Health England has advised that it does not expect there to be any long-term health effects from the fire.

My right hon. Friend rightly wants to know when his constituents will be rid of the waste operation, and when the stored waste will be removed. The site must now be returned to a condition that does not pose a continuing risk to the local community and the environment. The primary legal responsibility for that sits firmly with Blackwater, as the holder of the environmental permit. The site operator must meet his responsibility to clear the site and make it safe. As my right hon. Friend said, the landowners, Mr and Mrs Blythe, are calling for the Environment Agency to remove the residual waste from the site. The full cost of removing and disposing of the waste is estimated to be in the region of £635,000. Clearly, the removal of the stored waste must be a priority for all concerned.

I understand that there were early signs that the operator of the site was co-operating with the Environment Agency to address the breaches of his permit. However, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, the agency found it necessary to serve an enforcement notice on Blackwater on 10 January 2014. The notice required the company to comply with its environmental permit by removing all the extinguished waste by 24 February.

The site operator has utterly failed to comply with the notice. As a result, the Environment Agency is gathering evidence and has called the operator to a formal interview under caution to answer allegations of non-compliance, which could lead to prosecution or other enforcement action, including a court order to clear the site. If the operator is prosecuted, he should face the full consequences of his failings.

The seriousness of environmental offences and their environmental and economic impact has been recognised and embodied in the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline on environmental offences, which was published last week. In following the guideline, it is hoped that courts will reflect the true cost of breaches of environmental legislation when sentencing offenders and that that will act as a strong deterrent.

As my right hon. Friend has indicated, the Environment Agency has discretionary powers that enable it to take action and recover costs.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I took part in the framing of the sentencing guidelines and hope that they will provide strong guidance if the matter comes to court. The Minister has referred to the recent decision to take enforcement action. Will he deal later in his remarks with the extraordinarily long period of inaction between 2011 and 2013?

[Dan Rogerson]

I assure my right hon. Friend that I will talk about the discussions that I have had with the Environment Agency on earlier intervention in sites that may cause a problem or that are causing alarm.

In the first instance, the Environment Agency is encouraging the operator and the landowner to liaise with their respective insurers so that the cost of clearing and disposing of the waste does not add to the significant costs that have been incurred by the public purse in responding to the incident and in the subsequent pollution monitoring. Given the potential cost that I have set out, we must do everything that we can to avoid it being borne by the public purse. We face many challenges and the Environment Agency is doing a great deal of work across a range of issues, not least as a result of the recent extreme weather events. We must not leap up to incur these costs because they would have an impact on the budget of the Environment Agency or the local authority that intervened.

More generally, I hope that it will reassure my right hon. Friend to hear that I have been working with the Environment Agency and others to consider how we might prevent problems like those at Thrunton from arising, so that we do not have to take lengthy and costly remedial action. I met the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith of Finsbury, and its chief executive, Dr Paul Leinster, late last year to discuss these matters, following my appointment as Minister in October. I will do so again shortly.

The agency is under a duty to ensure that site operators are in a position to meet the obligations under their permits. I have challenged the agency to come to me with proposals on this issue. I am pleased to say that it is exploring, with representatives of the waste management industry, how operators can ensure that they are in a position to fund their obligations, including any potential clear-up and reducing the risk of the abandonment of waste and waste fires.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are working with the waste industry and the fire and rescue service to identify the root cause of fire incidents. We will assess the lessons that can be learned and the longer-term interventions that may be needed. The Environment Agency is reviewing what it can do to reduce the risk of fires, reduce the drivers of non-compliant behaviour and tackle the problem swiftly.

My right hon. Friend rightly focused on the agency’s approach to the enforcement of the permit conditions at the site. The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of regulated facilities to check their compliance with the terms and conditions of the environmental permits that it grants.

The agency has my full backing to take tough and timely enforcement action against those who repeatedly flout the law, undermine the legitimate waste management industry, and cause suffering to local communities. As part of the lessons to be learned from the handling of this case, I will ask the agency to consider whether its enforcement action could have been swifter.

I acknowledge that there have been several recent fires at regulated waste sites, with impacts on local communities that are similar to this case. Some 97% of waste management operators are good performers, so the emphasis must be on how best to intervene early to deal with the non-compliance of the poorest performers in a way that prevents harm to human health and damage to the environment.

The impact of poor performance and waste fires is one topic in the report, “Waste Crime: Tackling Britain’s Dirty Secret”, which was published on Tuesday this week by the Environmental Services Association Education Trust. I made it clear at the launch of that report that the Government want legitimate waste businesses to prosper and grow. Effective compliance and enforcement are needed to ensure that the market operates as we want, and that serious environmental damage is avoided. My right hon. Friend can be assured that I will continue to monitor the outcome of the incident, and work with the agency to ensure that lessons are learned. I will write to inform him of the actions to be taken as a result.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I would like to be sure of two things from the Minister. First, does he believe that an atmosphere was created in which the agency did not feel that it could or should use its powers, and that that was perhaps contributed to by inappropriate political pressures such as those I have described? Secondly, is he prepared to talk further with the Environment Agency about how we can avoid a situation in which a landowner who has done so much to deal with the problem is landed with the quite impossible total cost of the clear up?

Fishing Industry

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

My constituency shares with the hon. Gentleman’s a significant involvement in this traditional fishery. The river fishery to which he refers is an important part of the economy of the Tweed and other rivers, but does he not agree that it in no way depends on driving out of business a few fishermen in small boats who exercise responsibly traditional and historical licences, and that the decision to close the fishery altogether is wholly unjustified?

[Mr Campbell]

I agree entirely on both counts with the right hon. Gentleman. Anecdotally, I am told that salmon stocks are relatively healthy and that there are salmon in more and more rivers in Northumberland and—I would imagine—in south-east Scotland as well. The fishermen themselves contribute to the hatchery that puts fish in at Kielder to ensure that stocks are buoyant. I understand that there is some dispute over salmon stocks—

DEFRA Office (Alnwick)

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter that is of great concern in Alnwick in my constituency, particularly as the Minister responding is the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who knows a thing or two about the problems of rural areas, as he represents one himself. We have already met to discuss the problem, and he of course has come to it after all the key decisions have been taken, but I still hope that he will use his good offices to try to improve the situation for the staff at Alnwick.

Lion House, which has been rebuilt in recent years, has been in Alnwick since long before the first of my many years in this House. The reason we are considering this issue, which involves 40 jobs, is the Cabinet Office’s shared service centre initiative, which began in 2004 under the then Labour Government and was refashioned in 2011 by the present Government, and which has been subjected to severe criticism by the National Audit Office throughout for not delivering the savings it promised.

The office has a long history. About 30 years ago it ceased to be the regional office of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because the Department gave up its network of regional offices. I went to see the then Agriculture Minister, Peter Walker, who was the kind of Tory we do not see many of these days. He was extremely helpful. I suggested to him that he find other work for the office from the central work of the Department, and he did: library functions were transferred to Alnwick and in subsequent years the staff moved on to other work, in particular the handling of civil servants’ expenses. They could have given a lesson or two to the House authorities and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on the efficiency with which they managed their operations. Indeed, I am going to suggest to IPSA that it might move its work from central London to DEFRA’s Alnwick office. I will come back to that. The staff earned a very good reputation, and not just in DEFRA—they provided a service to several Departments.

What is to happen? A company has been formed, 75% of which is owned by a French company called Steria and 25% by the Government. That immediately prompts the question: what do the Government intend to do with their ownership and board membership of the company? Will they use them to good effect?

My hon. Friend the Minister has indicated to me that the work is likely to remain at Alnwick for 20 months while the company considers how it will be handled in the future. That raises the question how likely it is that the work will be offshored, perhaps to India or who knows where. There are different views on the matter. The unions are fairly convinced that the work will be offshored and Steria seems to have a commitment to offshoring as a major part of its operation. Of course, there are other sites involved, not just Alnwick. The Cabinet Office’s position is that non-customer-facing jobs will be offshored. I am not sure what that means when we are talking about civil servants and their personal expense claims. I think that they are customers of the service, so in that respect it is a customer-facing service.

What does the period of 20 months really mean? I was concerned to receive a letter from my hon. Friend in which he wrote that the company would

“continue to occupy accommodation at Alnwick (Lion House)”.

Does that mean that the work will continue for 20 months or that the company will just pay the rent of an increasingly empty building—which is already a matter of concern—for 20 months? Some rather unhelpful phraseology has crept in.

The situation is very worrying for staff. Let us consider their position under TUPE and the transfer arrangements. The unions have negotiated an agreement that is referred to as TUPE-plus. There seems to be some acceptance that, as these things go, it is not a bad agreement, but I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend the Minister explain what will be available to staff. During or after the 20-month period, will some of them be offered other civil service posts? It has been suggested that they will, but the trouble is that many of the posts may be down in Tyneside or even much further away, perhaps over in Carlisle, where the Rural Payments Agency is situated. What did the Department’s equality impact assessment have to say about the situation and about people with caring responsibilities who cannot easily move? They do very good work in the Alnwick office, but they would not be able to continue to provide a good service to the Government if they were told that they had to move a long distance away. That raises a question about what the Department will do, if outsourcing goes ahead, to seek other work for its staff. It seems to me that if there is a period in which the new company reviews what it does, that period should be used to look for other work that could be done at the Alnwick office, as Peter Walker did 30 years ago.

After all, this is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it exists to promote the health of rural communities, so it must not be in the business of relocating jobs from rural to urban areas. When change has to happen in particular functions, the natural response of the Department ought to be to see how far it can relocate work from urban to rural areas. Of the urban centres, I am thinking particularly about central London, where the Department still carries out activities that need to be considered for out-posting to its rural centres, of which Alnwick is one.

Other questions have been asked about the changes. The Public and Commercial Services union has asked about the tax status of the new company. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said in a letter to me that the joint venture

“will promote UK growth as a UK based taxpayer”.

What assessment has been made of the overall tax impact, which obviously includes VAT, and the impact of any offshoring, as well as of the domicile in France of the majority owner of the new company, Steria, which is a French company? The union has also asked about the handling of civil servants’ personal data if there is outsourcing to a country that does not have the rigorous data protection regime of this country. Ministers must address that question.

I will sum up the questions that the Minister must answer, and if there are any that he cannot answer tonight, I hope that he will do so by letter. What use will the Government make of their 25% ownership? Will they use it to encourage keeping jobs local, where that is an efficient outcome? I do not expect the Department to do so if there will not be a good outcome and value for money for the taxpayer, but there is pretty good evidence that Alnwick provides good value for money. I want the Government to use their participation in the company structure to encourage sourcing jobs locally wherever possible.

How committed is the new company to outsourcing? I am meeting people from it shortly, and I will put the same question to them, but the Government must have formed a view. What will happen in the 20 months? Will the work stay at Alnwick during that period, or will the office be virtually emptied with the work leaving earlier? Will the office be viable for the small number of remaining staff if most jobs go? What will the company and the Department do to seek other work if the Alnwick office loses its current work to outsourcing, and will alternative public service jobs be offered? What is the equality impact assessment in respect of carers, especially women? What is the tax impact, and what is the situation in relation to personal data?

Above all, does DEFRA recognise that it is the Department for rural affairs and is supposed to be committed to that role? How is it going to demonstrate that commitment to the people of the Alnwick area? Forty jobs may not seem many in the London context, but they have a big impact in a small rural community such as Alnwick, where there are not many such professional jobs and where the quality of locally available staff has been clearly demonstrated.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) not just for how he is currently representing his constituents as regards the Alnwick office, but for how he has done so, as we have heard, over many years—going back to the era when Peter Walker was the Secretary of State. I am sure that they are very grateful for and well aware of all that he has done to support them.

My right hon. Friend has set out the issues from his perspective. I will set out the Government’s point of view on the office in Alnwick and its history. The building is owned by the Department on a freehold basis. There are three occupants: DEFRA, Northumberland county council and the newly created joint venture organisation that we have heard about, Shared Services Connected Ltd. I will take each of those in turn.

The DEFRA network has a large estate spanning England and Wales that supports the delivery of its business. That includes officers, operational depots and scientific sites. The cost of the estate has come down significantly since 2011. By 2015, the savings from exiting properties and reducing the amount of space that we use will reach about £53 million per annum. However, the annual cost will still be about £113 million. We will look for ways to reduce that further. In Alnwick, DEFRA occupies office space for about 24 full-time equivalent staff who are focused on the management of information and providing warehouse facilities for archiving. There are also two full-time equivalent members of staff from the Rural Payments Agency.

Northumberland county council occupies 2,000 square feet of the Alnwick site. That lease expires on 2 February 2017, although a mutual break is available with 12 months’ notice from February 2015. However, there is no indication that Northumberland county council is looking to vacate the site.

Stimulating economic growth is a top priority for the Government. We want rural areas to contribute to and benefit from that growth. As my right hon. Friend kindly pointed out, I represent a rural area, although it is perhaps not as far flung and widely set as his area. None the less, it is a rural area and it faces many similar challenges. The Government have introduced a wide range of policies and initiatives to promote business and deliver growth in urban and rural areas, including new infrastructure, raising skill levels and supporting business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up a significant element of the rural economy, as my right hon. Friend knows.

The roll-out of superfast broadband infrastructure is vital to sustainable economic growth and the creation of jobs in rural areas. Online small businesses, whether rural or urban, grow four to eight times faster than their offline counterparts. The Government are investing £530 million in rural broadband up to 2015, which, through match funding, will result in up to £1.2 billion of public funds. The pace of progress is accelerating, with 42 of the 44 local projects contracted, including all of those in the south-west. Across the UK, 10,000 rural properties are being connected each week. As was announced in the spending review, a further £250 million will be available from 2015 to extend superfast broadband to 95% of UK premises by 2017.

I am setting out these policies to establish that the Government are very much committed to seeing rural areas share in the economic growth that we are delivering, in contrast to the position that we inherited.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has responsibility for this area, not least because Northumberland is way ahead of the field in its work on rural broadband. However, if small businesses can operate from rural locations, so can the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Dan Rogerson]

Absolutely, we can. I have set out the history of the office. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, it has shown that it can be a very efficient place from which to operate. We want to get to the position where the new company recognises that. What is being delivered there must be so competitive that it is attractive on a continuing basis. We would welcome that, but it must be a matter for the new shared venture company.

We are taking other action to support the rural economy, including improving competitiveness and skills, investing in rural tourism, and supporting new micro-enterprises and those that have aspirations to grow. We have established five pilot rural growth networks, which aim to tackle the barriers to economic growth in rural areas, such as the shortage of work premises, slow internet connectivity, which I have mentioned, and fragmented business networks.

DEFRA’s rural development programme for England has, to date, invested more than £400 million in projects to grow the rural economy. Completed projects have created more than 8,500 new jobs and safeguarded a further 9,700. The next seven-year rural development programme is a major opportunity to continue to invest in rural growth and the environment. We are working together with interested groups to design a programme that makes a measurable contribution to improving the environment and economic growth, while providing real value for money. The civil service is moving to being faster, smaller and more unified, and sharing services is a central part of that. The next generation shared services strategy sets out a new model to share human resources, procurement, finance and payroll functions with five centres, instead of the current eight, to deliver more efficient and cost-effective services.

As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Government signed an agreement on 1 November 2013 with Steria Ltd to create a joint venture partnership with Government. The new company, Shared Services Connected Ltd, has been formed initially from a consolidation of some existing shared service centres: the Department for Work and Pensions, DEFRA and the Environment Agency, with in-scope services from UK Shared Business Services Ltd expected to become part of SSCL by 2015. All DEFRA staff previously engaged in the delivery of shared services transferred to the new organisation from 1 November 2013. Services to existing customers are being maintained and delivered out of DEFRA offices in Alnwick and York.

The creation of SSCL is a key part of the civil service reform plan, which will harness industry best practice to deliver Government back-office functions more efficiently. Transforming back-office operations across Government could help to deliver between £400 million and £600 million in savings for the taxpayer, freeing up scarce resources to be better spent on front-line services. Economies of scale will enable Steria to drive down costs and improve service levels by sharing expertise across customers, adopting common processes and systems and investing in new tools. To be a competitive and viable business, SSCL needs to be in line with other companies of this kind, which see some non-customer-facing transactional roles being sourced offshore. As longer term transformation plans are agreed, SSCL will consult staff and representatives. Assistance will be provided to any affected staff, including reinstatement and redeployment opportunities.

Over time, the objective is to establish SSCL as the pre-eminent provider of shared services to UK central Government and the wider public sector. By migrating clients to a low-cost shared service model, it is estimated that total benefits delivered by SSCL will be in excess of £l billion. It is expected that in the course of the next couple of years there will be some site consolidation from the nine existing delivery sites, and we expect some staff reductions. Steria has made a number of commitments on behalf of SSCL, including: no compulsory redundancies in the first six months, an intent to minimise the need for compulsory redundancies through work force planning, and a series of redundancy avoidance measures during the transformation period. Steria has also agreed that any final decisions on location will not be made for six months. That will be a business-based decision. My right hon. Friend will be well aware that this is a key point. There will be a chance to demonstrate office efficiency, given the low cost of locating in the base, the ownership of the premises and so on, so there is a good case to be made to Steria for the Alnwick office. However, the decision will ultimately be based on what it aims to deliver to Government and the taxpayer.

With regard to shared services staff currently based in DEFRA’s Alnwick office, we have an agreement that SSCL will continue to occupy accommodation at Alnwick Lion House for a period of 20 months. That is an update on the minimum 12-month commitment that was previously communicated. That represents progress in the right direction, and my right hon. Friend’s efforts to focus attention on what has been achieved at Alnwick have played a part in that. The Department is well aware of what it has delivered over many years.

[Sir Alan Beith]

May I press my hon. Friend on the 20-month period? The phrase “occupy accommodation” is unpersuasive. I had understood him to anticipate that in the 20-month period the work would be likely to remain there, although that would not involve an absolute guarantee on the number of jobs that would remain during that period. Will he clarify that for me?

[Dan Rogerson]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern about that. He is right that, in a period of transition, members of staff might look to the future and decide whether to look for other opportunities, while others will stay on. The agreement is as described, which is to say that the accommodation will continue to be occupied. The company’s plans for carrying out the activity there is essentially a matter that he will have to take up with the company itself, but he has certainly put his concerns on the record tonight. I am happy to take those concerns back, so that we can get a little more clarity for him and his constituents about what that might mean.

My right hon. Friend asked what staff could expect. There is an expectation that other opportunities for staff will be put forward first, so that options for redeployment can be explored. I have a great deal of sympathy generally for his view about Government jobs in rural areas. The tax office in my constituency went during the last Government drive to narrow the HMRC estate, which was a matter of great sadness. As a Government, we need to ensure that we explore all the options for keeping jobs in rural areas. He was generous enough to point out that I am relatively new to my responsibilities, but I know that previous Ministers will have made the case for keeping as many jobs as possible in rural areas, and I am keen to do so too, alongside ensuring the private sector investment that we are stimulating in the ways that I have set out.

The company’s tax position is clearly not a matter for DEFRA, but my right hon. Friend asked that I seek further information for him, and I am happy to do so. He also made a fair point about how the Government will use their stake in the new organisation. Clearly we will want to ensure that lessons are learned and that the objectives of the original project to make efficiencies are met, but there might also be opportunities to ensure that the company takes into consideration some of the points he has raised this evening. Again, I can feed his concerns about that through to ministerial colleagues in the Cabinet Office.

The shape of what will happen at the office has not been decided—that is a matter for the new organisation to take forward. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is in discussions with the company, which is a sensible way for him to proceed. I thank him for the diligent way in which he has pursued this matter. Having been in this role for about a month, I have heard from him on several occasions—through parliamentary questions, in discussions with officials and, now, on the Floor of the House. I know that he will continue to ensure that his constituents get the very best service as the transformation project moves forward.

I hope I have given my right hon. Friend a little reassurance that we recognise the huge achievements of people at the Alnwick office, who will be well placed to make the case for how efficient they have been in the duties they have discharged. The commitment to continue to occupy the accommodation in Alnwick for 20 months goes much further than the original 12 months. Some of the questions he has raised tonight will be considered during that period and the answers will come forward. I am happy to remain in contact with him about this matter, and in particular about the questions he has posed that I have been unable to answer without reference to ministerial colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

Fisheries

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Doran]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good and valuable point. There needs to be much more co-ordination between Ministers, and I will come to that point later.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

While the hon. Gentleman is on that issue, we should also look at the reorganisation of search and rescue helicopters. Fishermen in the North sea are extremely concerned that RAF Boulmer will no longer be a base under the current proposals, and they do not feel that they have been consulted about that either.

[Mr Doran]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In my constituency we have not only the fishing industry but the oil and gas industry, and the search and rescue helicopters were a key part of the safety programme. People are very concerned about what will replace them.

I return to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) about migrant workers. I raised the issue of migrant workers in the industry in the 2008 fisheries debate—I have probably been doing these debates for too long. [Interruption.] Was that a cheer or a boo? I am not sure. At the time, it seemed that the problem was limited to Northern Ireland and Scotland, and there were some shocking examples of how migrant labourers, mainly from south-east Asia, were being treated, particularly what they were being paid, the hours that they were working and the failure to provide adequate accommodation.

Matters came to a head when three south-east Asian fishermen died in a fire on a fishing boat in Fraserburgh. I received information from the International Transport Workers’ Federation that included the terms and conditions under which those individuals were employed, and I passed it on to the relevant authorities. Having raised that issue in the 2008 debate, I am pleased that action was taken by the then Minister at DEFRA, as well as by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in relation to the application of the minimum wage and the Home Office in relation to visa requirements. It took a co-ordinated approach, and at that time, it looked as though the problems had been resolved.

However, I noticed that on 28 November this year, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile)—I do not think he is here today—and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is present, raised similar problems in their constituencies with the Minister for Immigration during a debate in this Chamber. Just yesterday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, Dumfries and Galloway police led what they described as a multi-agency operation as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations of labour exploitation in the fishing industry. Over 150 personnel from the police and other agencies were involved in raids on businesses and residential premises, as well as fishing vessels in Annan, Silloth and Peterhead. Welfare and support arrangements have been provided for 17 foreign nationals who came to the UK from the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia to work in the fishing industry.

From those incidents, it seems that we are seeing the reintroduction of some very unpleasant practices in the industry, and I am concerned about that given my previous experiences. Obviously, there will be ongoing investigations into what will be a complex issue in Scotland, so I will say no more about those specific events. However, the fishing industry has suffered massive reputational damage recently, because of court cases involving illegal fishing in Scotland, and those latest events will not improve its image.

Cheap immigrant labour is hired to save money. The most important thing, in my view, is the need to examine the economics of the industry at every level. Fishing boats and gear are expensive, as are operating costs, wages, fuel, insurance and labour, and the acquisition of quota by purchase or lease is extremely expensive. The very nature of the industry means that there is uncertainty about catches, the quality of the catch and the price received for it. Add in the restrictions and a different kind of uncertainty caused by the common fisheries policy, limits on catches, days at sea, type of gear and so on, and a difficult situation is made much worse.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael]

I am very pleased to be able to defend the Youth Justice Board, which was established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for which I had responsibility as deputy Home Secretary. The Act is widely respected as a practical and effective piece of legislation, which also established the youth offending teams, the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and antisocial behaviour orders, changes that have all been effective in cutting crime and reducing reoffending.

The success of the youth offending teams is due in large part to the insight, independence, creativity, leadership and clear focus on cutting youth crime that the Youth Justice Board has provided, and which a Government Department cannot provide. The facts of that success are clear. Around 90,000 young people under 18 were brought into the youth justice system for the first time in 2000, and there were about 50,000 first-time entrants in 2010, a reduction of 45%. Reoffending by young people was reduced by 27% between 2000 and 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. The number of young people under 18 held in custody is down by more than 25%. In August 2000, 2,968 young people under 18 were in custody, and in August 2011, 2,106 were in custody. The Audit Commission has confirmed that the system works well.

In 2010, the incoming Justice Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), pledged to use the justice reinvestment report of the Justice Committee as their textbook for their time in office, but to do away with the Youth Justice Board signals that they have abandoned that promise. A wide range of organisations is appalled by the proposal to do away with the Youth Justice Board, but I will mention just two.

The Association of Chief Police Officers said:

“The recent disorder in London and indeed other areas of the country have shown that crime committed by young people should be carefully and seriously considered. The performance of the youth justice system under the leadership of the YJB has been considerable.”

It went on to warn that we would lose some of the successful joint initiatives that have been developed between the police and the Youth Justice Board. Finally, it makes the damning comment:

“There has been no evidence put forward to date that demonstrates the proposed transfer of the YJB’s functions to the Ministry of Justice will deliver better results.”

The fact is that it will not.

The Magistrates Association, speaking of the Youth Justice Board, said that

“the Magistrates Association from first-hand experience would say that it has a vital and continuing role to play in the justice system. Its very raison d’etre for magistrates is that it provides continuity of policy, strategy and implementation in a way that a general approach through the wider Ministry of Justice cannot deliver.”

It warns that

“the coherence that is now one of the successes of the system will be compromised and seriously damaged.”

By implication, the Government know that the Youth Justice Board has been a success, because they are not abolishing its role, but nationalising it. I did not know that Ministers were quite so left-wing or old-fashioned in their approach. I can only assume that No. 10 is demanding a tick in the box for abolishing a quango and does not care about the damage that will be done.

Over time, if the Youth Justice Board is taken into the Department for Justice, the Department will lose the expertise that has been drawn together within the board. If those who work in the board wanted to be civil servants, they would have applied to join the civil service. I hope that that attrition will be slow, but it will be inevitable. Government Departments are not good at running things, and the strength of the board is its focus on cutting youth crime, the independence and respect that it has earned and its capacity for working in partnership with others, which is why new clauses 11 and 12 are important. That point about partnership is demonstrated by the two organisations that I quoted and many others.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman has a very good record both in the work that he did as a Minister and in the work that he did on the Justice Committee on this matter, but I think he would acknowledge that it would be wrong to ascribe to the board, for all its good work, the achievements that are really those of youth offending teams at local level, where partnership really matters.

[Alun Michael]

The point I made, and the point that is made by the Magistrates Association and by chief police officers, is that success at the local level depended on the coherence, independence and energy of the Youth Justice Board in supporting their work. All of them value the Youth Justice Board and all of them say that a Department cannot do it. From my experience in government I am convinced that a Department, working internally, cannot effectively replace the work of the Youth Justice Board.

New clauses 11 and 12 would protect the partnership approach between the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Assembly. I pay particular tribute to the Minister responsible in the Welsh Assembly Government, Carl Sargeant, for his engagement in this issue and to the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, for his commitment to the cause of cutting crime, particularly youth crime. Criminal justice is not a devolved matter, but the devolution of children’s services, education and health policy means that a significant part of the delivery of local youth justice services is subject to Welsh Government oversight, and the Youth Justice Board has specific objectives in Wales to take account of this.

The Youth Justice Board has worked closely with the Welsh Government and other delivery partners in Wales to improve the youth justice system, and that partnership working must not be underestimated. It works. The inclusion of a board member for Wales on the Youth Justice Board has been critical in navigating the different arrangements that exist in Wales for youth justice. The board member has lead responsibility for Wales and enabled the Youth Justice Board to work effectively in Wales and develop key stakeholder relationships.

I pay particular tribute to my good friend Professor Howard Williamson—we worked together when I was a youth worker—for the massive contribution he made to enabling that partnership to work. I could illustrate that in detail at some length and wish I had time to do so, because there is a tremendous amount of important material that I would like to expand on, particularly how ensuring that placements in England have worked for young people who are returned to Welsh communities. Essentially, it is the partnership that has worked, and it is the partnership that would be put at risk unless Ministers accept, preferably, that the Youth Justice Board should be allowed to continue and, in particular, that there is a need for partnership arrangements to continue.

New clause 11 would put the current committee arrangements between the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Assembly Government on a statutory basis, which implies the board’s continuation. The alternative, as set out in new clause 12, would be to create a partnership, through a joint committee, between the Ministry of Justice, or any other organisation to which the Government transferred the powers, and the Welsh Assembly Government.

When the Home Affairs Committee recently took evidence in Wales, we heard from an individual who was working in the Assembly as a result of a joint appointment by the Assembly and the Youth Justice Board. It is that joint working that has built up the confidence that is needed. The Youth Justice Board has developed a model that works, and it should be the model for other Government agencies and Departments, many of which still do not understand how to get the best out of the complementary roles they share with the Welsh Assembly.

I urge Ministers to accept the new clause and not include the Youth Justice Board within the ambit of the Bill. I urge them, in any event, to accept that the partnership arrangements between the Government, or their agency, and Wales should be put on a statutory basis and to understand and support the importance of partnership, because it has been effective in reducing youth crime and we need it to continue.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The Justice Committee has taken a close interest in this matter, as it did when the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was a member; he contributed extensively to our work on it. We have been considering it lately but are yet to take a formal view on whether the Youth Justice Board needs to survive. However, we have explored thoroughly what needs to happen if it is abolished. The Youth Justice Board has done a lot of good work, not least in leading a reduction in the use of custody for young people. That led to the closure of a youth offenders institution in my constituency, but the places have of course been taken as a result of the prison system’s other requirements.

I want to make three points about what is essential in this field, whether the Youth Justice Board survives or not. First, the crucial element is that youth offending teams work at local level. The Youth Justice Board has given the initial leadership to develop youth offending teams, following initiatives taken by the right hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister. The ability of all relevant agencies at local level, including the police, social services, local authorities and housing authorities, to work together is crucial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I have instituted arrangements within the Department during this transitional period for the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board to come and see me regularly on a bilateral basis. That did not exist when I became the Minister with responsibility for youth justice, when accountability was through the chairman of the board. I think that we now have a much more satisfactory working practice—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says that he does not really believe that. Well, I do believe it on the evidence of what has happened over the past 18 months. I will elaborate on that later in my remarks and tell him and the House why I have come to that conclusion.

The Justice Secretary recognises the need to strengthen the Ministry’s focus on youth justice by establishing a ministerial advisory group on youth justice. The group will provide timely advice to Ministers about delivery and the front line. That advice will inform the development of youth justice policy in the longer term. It will include advice on effective practice and what will work best to achieve the objectives that Ministers have set. The ministerial advisory group will be my key forum for providing external, expert oversight of operational youth justice practice to the Ministry of Justice. I will chair it as the Minister responsible for youth justice. It must consist of members who have expertise in the effective operation of the youth justice system; otherwise it will not be able to do the job that I need it to do and it will not have credibility with the informed youth justice lobby, which properly follows these matters with due care.

Finally, Dame Sue Street, a non-executive director at the Ministry of Justice, will take an active interest in youth justice within the Ministry. She has experience and knowledge of youth justice. Indeed, she undertook a review of the Youth Justice Board, but her remit did not include asking whether the Youth Justice Board should continue. Of course, as a non-executive member of the Ministry of Justice board, she will have a direct route to the permanent secretary and the Secretary of State. She is happy to take on those responsibilities as part of her role at the Department.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I want my hon. Friend to make it quite clear that he is not stepping back from his welcome indication that it will be possible for the advice that is given to Ministers by the advisory group to be probed by Parliament, and that its members will be able to come before the Justice Committee and tell us what their advice was.

[Mr Blunt]

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. It would be quixotic to say now that it is advice to Ministers and that it will not be discoverable. The effectiveness of the group will depend first on the credibility of its members’ experience and expertise and, secondly, on whether its members are prepared to speak freely and openly on these issues. I anticipate that individuals, whether or not they are members of my advisory group, will be available to his Select Committee so that it, like me, is informed of their views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sir Alan Beith]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will give way to my hon. Friends, but then I am going to make some progress.

[Andrew Percy]

It is always easy to concentrate on the emotive issues in debates like this, and it can be very powerful, but I also believe there are less emotive reasons for pursing this policy. I would not suggest for a moment than anybody does not want to support families; it is a question of how we drive the reform forward. It is a bit like the discussion last night, when the Conservative party was united but had different tactics.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that it would be possible to have a chief coroner who could provide professional leadership by the designation of an existing coroner without going into the very large costs involved in the original proposal and without involving the chief coroner in running an appeals system, which might more appropriately remain a matter for reference under law to the courts?

[Andrew Percy]

My right hon. Friend makes a point that I was coming to. We have not identified where the savings could be in this system. Many would contend that the costs of adjourned and delayed hearings and of expensive judicial reviews could be taken out of the system by the chief coroner. My concern is that far too much emphasis has been placed on costs.

I said that I was going to talk about three particular issues. The first is independent leadership, which I think we all agree lies at the heart of the chief coroner’s appointment and is the reason for his status as linchpin of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Parliament accepted back then that if real reform was to be achieved, there must be an independent judicial leader with responsibility for spearheading that reform. Independence is key.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I will come on to the costings and explain why the costings provided by the last Government were correct—we checked them—but let me finish what I was saying.

The powers will allow the Department of Health to proceed with its proposals to introduce a new system for examining the causes of death, thereby fulfilling one of the key recommendations of Dame Janet Smith’s report on the Shipman inquiry.

Concerns were expressed in Committee that I might not give this work the priority that it deserves. That could not be further from the truth. In particular, we have plans to establish a new ministerial board to drive these reforms, to provide oversight of the non-judicial aspects of the coroner system, and to provide a direct line of accountability on these matters to Parliament. We will also establish a bereaved organisations committee that will support the board and provide those who represent bereaved families with a direct line to Ministers.

[Sir Alan Beith]

One of the concerns of the Justice Committee has been about the uncertain and widely differing arrangements for providing financial support for coroners and the widely differing arrangements for providing coroners officers, who are sometimes provided by the police and sometimes by the local authority, with no uniform standard of training. Will the system that the Minister is describing deal with this problem?

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, the board will be there to address policy issues such as those that my right hon. Friend mentioned. It is important to keep in mind that the position of chief coroner would have had power over none of those.

The ministerial board will meet quarterly, with the dates fixed and publicised well in advance so that meetings cannot be cancelled without good reason. The board will also have a strong independent feel to it, with coroners and other members sitting on it, together with representatives from the bereaved organisations committee.

The new committee will be independently chaired and I have given commitments that the chair cannot be appointed or removed without the approval of committee members. I would expect the chair to become a powerful advocate for the bereaved and be a champion of coroner reform. If the Government are not delivering on this package of reforms, I would expect the chair to hold us to account.

The bereaved organisations committee will have a particular remit to monitor the new charter for coroner services. The charter, which we intend to publish in early 2012 following the recent consultation exercise, will set out for the first time the standards of service that those coming into contact with the system can and should expect. This will play a vital role in driving up standards of service and helping people to understand their rights and responsibilities in relation to the coroner system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

I am sorry, but I will not.

The great military and diplomatic historian Garrett Mattingly said that to do justice to the dead as well as to the living is what matters. That is one of the issues at the heart of tonight's debate. I urge Members on both sides of the House to take those points on board, consider what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole has said and support his amendment.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The Justice Committee has on two occasions—in its present and previous form—published reports dedicated not to the creation of an office or a title, but to fundamental reform of a system in which there are too many differences across the country. There are too many differences in the ability and efficiency of coroners, in how they are resourced and how their offices are provided for, and too little support and sympathy is shown for bereaved relatives, whether military or those who belong to any of the other categories that have been mentioned today. The important question is not the title, but whether the reforms are actually carried out.

The Minister left me a little confused on whether some High Court judge will ultimately have the words “chief coroner” added to his title. My primary objective is to see reform of the system, rather than someone acquire the title, merit though I see in there being someone who could exercise some professional leadership, just as the head of ACPO exercises professional leadership among police officers and the heads of other organisations.

[Robert Flello]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Alan Beith]

I will not, as I want to be brief in order to allow another Member to speak in the time that remains.

The Justice Committee never wanted to see an office of the chief coroner that would be vast, expensive or become involved in the provision of an alternative appeals system, which in my view would never be a proper role for a chief coroner. A chief coroner could help to ensure that cases were handled by the right coroner and that the necessary advice had been given, but appeals against what happened in an inquest need to be to a superior court that has the capacity to examine the legal questions that will then arise.

The coroners system does not exist in Scotland. If military casualties were flown directly to Scotland, they would not be the subject of inquests, unless of course that were to be stipulated in the Bill, because the Scottish system depends on the procurator fiscal deciding that there is something to be investigated, which a wholly different approach. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have always assumed that having the coroner as an objective adjudicator of the cause of death in cases where that was in doubt, or where the state was involved, was a necessary part of our system. Making that system work effectively should be our primary objective.

I welcome the attention that the Royal British Legion has given the matter and remain of the view that it would be useful to have professional leadership from someone designated as chief coroner, but what I want more than anything is for the Government to go ahead with introducing proper, judicially based support for the coroners system so that we can ensure that coroners are properly resourced and are of even quality across the country.

[Mr Ainsworth]

The most telling intervention on the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who moved the amendment, was from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), who asked how we got to where we are. After three years of consultation, cross-party agreement and a full examination of what was needed, how did we get to a position in which that has been scrapped and thrown away by the Government as part of a bundle of measures intended to save costs—costs that they will not even share? How did we get to a position in which the Government continually say that there was constructive dialogue with organisations which basically claim that there has been skulduggery and no effective dialogue with them at all?

When the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said he wanted clarification, the Minister made it clear from a sedentary position that no High Court judge would have the words “chief coroner” added to his title. There will be no independent leadership for the coronial system under what is proposed. It is the Government themselves who are causing that delay, not the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole or those of us who want to see the creation of the office of the chief coroner. It is the Government who are causing the delay and the only way to move them is to support the amendment so ably moved by—

Fisheries

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

The hon. Gentleman emphasises my point. We need to move from advice to management. We have a far too centralised common fisheries policy and, as we have been saying for decades, we need to decentralise it.

The fundamental problem, as many hon. Members have said, is the blunt instrument of the quota system. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test implied, we do not want to replace that overnight with the blunt response of stopping all discards. That could have immediate catastrophic consequences. We need to move to a situation where there is no need for discards of dead fish from trawlers.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. In the Northumberland coast fishery, where most of the boats are day boats that do not travel far out, an immediate ban on discards would prevent people from catching other species. At the moment, a lot of haddock are being caught because they are plentiful. We could not stop all the boats from fishing completely because of the number of haddock they are catching.

[Andrew George]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who is assiduous on this issue and helps to emphasise the particular problems for day boats and inshore fisheries.

There is also a problem with the illogicality of throwing back dead fish. No one quite understands the benefit of that. The only possible scientific benefit is that other fish might feed on those fish. As all those involved in fisheries management will understand, the problem is that to apply an effective fisheries management policy, one needs to be able to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch. Of course, a lot of the by-catch is of a high marketable value. One has to query what would be the ultimate impact if one said, “We’ll stop all discards and you can land and market all the fish you catch, regardless, because we feel sorry for you and don’t like to think of you throwing back dead fish.” We cannot simply adopt, overnight, a ban on discards.