European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I should start by reflecting that the speech by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was one of the finest analyses of what happened in the referendum. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) also absolutely hit the nail on the head about where we are today and how we need to progress.

We have heard, and will continue to hear in this debate, reasons why people feel they cannot support the Government’s deal. We will hear hon. Member after hon. Member describe in gruesome detail what precise strand of Brexit or non-Brexit they will support. That will be all very fascinating for their local paper or grist to the mill for their next blog, but in the context of what Parliament is doing in this debate and in next week’s vote it will be utterly irrelevant. What matters is not what any of us individually think of the deal; what matters is what Members in the Chamber decide. What matters is the maths of who makes up this House.

I am happy to give detailed reasoning to the House for why I am prepared to support the Government. That would be of interest to some of my constituents. It would be welcome news to my constituent who runs a business which employs over 20,000 people and is pleading with us to agree the deal. It would be interesting to the small businesses in my constituency that wrote to me about why ideological Brexiteers are playing with fire when they breezily claim that no deal would be just a bit of mid-air turbulence. We should listen to such people and ask ourselves who is more likely than them to understand the complexity of supply chains or the competitive pricing of their products.

For some in this House the word “compromise” is a pejorative term: a sign of weakness and a word which is too quickly followed by other words like “betrayal”. For me, compromise is almost always a virtue. I compromised as a soldier serving on operations. I compromised as a businessman in every negotiation I did. I compromised as a Minister when negotiating in Europe for this country. I compromise almost daily in this place trying to get some of what I want through, rather than getting nothing. Perhaps the best analogy I can use is that I compromised when I got divorced. As one hon. Member said outside this Chamber the other day, “At least his divorce was with only one person, not 27.”

As the leading Brexit campaigner Dan Hannan wrote recently, if a 52% to 48% referendum result is a mandate for anything, it is a mandate for compromise. That said, like most in this House I am a democrat and I concede that my side lost. Like about 85% of this House, I was re-elected in 2017—I might add, with the highest ever popular vote in my constituency in any general election—on a manifesto that pledged to respect the result of the referendum. If we look at the bell curve of public opinion on this issue, we see the edges of the bell curve showing the irreconcilables, the small percentage at either end who are either inexorably grieving at the result of the referendum and will do anything they can to undo it, or those for whom the cleanest of breaks with the EU is a theocracy and an ideology on which, as with the other end of the scale, compromise is impossible. And then there is the rest of the country. Here we find an understanding about what we want to achieve: to move from being a country inside the EU with some opt-outs, to one being outside the EU with some opt-ins. For many of them, this deal is fine. I support the Prime Minister if she can bring forward any changes and tweaks that will encourage more of our colleagues to join. I also give notice that if that fails I will seek, with other colleagues right across the House, to find a way forward. If that takes me down an EEA or EFTA route, then I will look at that. That would be sub-optimal, but it may be the only thing the House can agree. What I do feel is that there is no majority in this House for no deal. I really urge people to listen to industry and to the letter we received today from the four presidents of the NFU. If one represents a rural area and minds about our food industry and the rural economy, that letter is calm, deliberate knowledge.

In the spirit of compromise, and to ensure there is something for all of us, I am really attracted by the idea that, perhaps on workers’ rights, the environment, and health and safety, we could provide a sort of triple lock where if Europe decides to raise standards above where we are today we can say that we will put them to this House. We are a sovereign House of Commons. We can make a decision on whether to support them. I am interested in that.

I wish to say a word to those who want a second vote. If someone is calling for it because they see it as the best way of reversing the first referendum, say so—be honest with the public and do not dress it up with some higher purpose. In passing, I would also say: be careful what you wish for. The further one gets from London and its bien pensant elites, the more one detects an anger and belligerence towards the campaign for a second referendum. The Institute for Government has said it would take four to five months to have a second referendum. We would be putting this poor country through another four or five months of the kind of divisions we saw in the last one. Is that what we really want? The Electoral Commission, the independent body that oversees such votes, has very strong views on some of the points being made about the kind of questions that might be asked.

My discussions with some of the 97% of my constituents who have not written to me on this issue can be condensed down to one simple message: get on with it.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept, though, that if the House were to support the Government’s deal, along with the political declaration, it would be a sure fire way of ensuring that this uncertainty and political wrangling continue for years to come?

[Richard Benyon]

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It will give certainty. It would certainly give certainty to many of the businesses I have talked about. I think there is a dam holding back investment in the economy. We all see it in our constituencies. If the deal were to go through, I think we would see a mini-boom in this country, as well as a determination to close this off in the minds of the electorate by trying to speed through the final stage of negotiations. If there is another emotion I detect in my constituency, it is one of admiration for the tenacity of the Prime Minister. While not everyone will agree with what she has come up with, I think we can all accept that.

I will finish with a heartfelt plea to people right across the House not to stand absolutely on the principle and clear position of what they would accept, but to recognise that the House of Commons has to raise its game, understand that compromise is not a dirty word and find a solution that we can all agree.

UK Sea Bass Stocks

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

I did set about trying to increase the minimum landing size. I regret that we did not move faster when going through the process of consultation and further consultation, and trying to ensure that this was agreed at European level, because the evidence is all there. When you are a Minister, people tell you that someone cannot be prevented from doing something without enough evidence and judicial review, and that there are threats of infraction, and all the other things. However, I freely admit that if I had my time over again I would steamroller this through and take the consequences, because the consequence now is a crashing stock. The stock will disappear, along with the economic value.

To the fishermen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), I say this: I have met them many times and I have great respect for them, but they will not be fishing for bass, not because of any decision taken by any Minister of any party, but because there will be none. They have a great future ahead of them exploiting other stocks, such as thornback rays and other things that are prevalent in those waters, but they really will have an economic benefit if they can get the fishermen on their boats to catch recreational bass in future.

[Mr Bradshaw]

It might help the hon. Gentleman if I say a little bit about my experience. In this regard, it was one of those occasions as a Minister where I had to stand up to powerful and well-funded vested interests and to officials. Great as my officials were, I am afraid it was a Minister’s decision against the advice and the will of my officials, and sometimes that is the right thing to do.

[Richard Benyon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that position clear. It is important to listen to advice, but as I say we could still be fiddling when Rome burns. This stock will shortly be gone.

Other hon. Members want to speak. I shall conclude by saying that 80% of bass swim within 12 nautical miles of the coast, so action is needed now. We need action on minimum landing sizes; we need spatial and temporal closures; and we need better protection of nursery areas. Yes, we need a bag limit, but I do not believe that that is a massive issue—whether it is one, two or three—but other technical measures in the commercial fishery are needed. We also need better data so that we can face down the interests that say that this is the wrong decision.

The only way forward for bass is for them to be caught by hand line or rod. Any commercial activity at all should be based on its being a premium, hand-caught resource, in a similar way to mackerel in the south-west and other species: a virtue is made of the fact that those are local and high quality. My frank message to poncey restaurateurs who demand bass the size of the palm of my hand for their fussy customers is, “Get those from aquaculture, don’t get them from out of our seas, because that is destroying a stock.” Actually, their customers will probably mind more about not being able to eat bass in future. I want to see our waters criss-crossed with charter boats taking fat cats out to fish this really exciting stock, putting that money into coastal communities, and see a sustainable source working for this country, not crashing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I assure my right hon. Friend that I share his frustration. I inherited a system that created huge expectations but which did not match the evidence required to make these zones work. We are now seeking to make sure that they are evidence-based, affordable, fit in with what happens locally in the seas and part of a coherent package.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Vital marine habitats off Devon and Cornwall will be lost for ever because this Government are not implementing a fully ecologically coherent network of marine conservation zones or following the time scale laid down in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Will the Minister please think again and tell the Chancellor that the costs of inaction in the long run will be far greater than the costs of protecting our marine environment now?

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman is looking at marine conservation zones as if they are the only show in town. We have 42 special areas of conservation and 37 special protection areas around the English coast. About a quarter of our inshore waters are protected and we have more than 300 sites of special scientific interest in the intertidal zone. What we are trying to do with marine conservation zones is part of a much bigger picture of marine protection. We will be one of the leading countries in the world for marine conversation and the right hon. Gentleman should feel proud about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am delighted to report that at 6.15 am yesterday we got an agreement that the Council of Ministers is now in a position to do a deal with the Parliament that means we will, at last, see a meaningful end to the practice of discarding perfectly edible fish. This is part of a radical reform of the common fisheries policy, for which Members from all parts of the House have been calling for a great many years.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What is the Government’s estimate of the costs of policing the badger cull, and who will pay for it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the disgraceful over-fishing of mackerel by Iceland, leading to the Marine Stewardship Council removing mackerel from the list of sustainable fish, exposes the folly of the idea of repatriation of fisheries policies?

[Richard Benyon]

The Marine Stewardship Council has not delisted mackerel; another organisation downgraded it. It is certainly still right to buy British-landed mackerel—it is still a sustainable stock—but, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have serious worries about the activities of the Faroe Islands and Iceland in declaring a unilateral total allowable catch and not being willing to negotiate. We are working very hard to try to bring them back to the table, and we will use every measure we can. This is the most important stock for the United Kingdom industry, and most of all we want to protect it for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Unless every DEFRA Minister with a farm in his constituency is now disqualified from answering a farming question, will one of them now try to answer my question about the devastating impact of the Government’s proposed minimum alcohol price on the cider industry?

[Richard Benyon]

I shall be delighted to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the cider industry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been told that he cannot speak on the issue because of the preponderance of cider farmers in his constituency, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are working on the issue with the Department of Health and the Home Office. We will raise with those Departments any instances in which the measure would have a pernicious effect on the rural community, and exceptions may be forthcoming.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

That is absolutely right. I am afraid that water customers across the country are paying the price for this Government losing control of inflation. The reason we are all facing these massive increases in the current financial year and the next is that inflation is out of control. We in the south-west are suffering like everybody else. However welcome the £50 cut is, it will already have been wiped out by the time we get it. People will not notice it because their bills will be no lower than they were before, as a result of the two years of increases that they will suffer this year and the next.

We must stop the culture of annual increases, and I hope that the Government will do that when they bring forward their full water Bill. The hon. Member for St Ives is absolutely right about this. We always talk about the water industry as though it were the same as the gas industry, the electricity industry and the other privatised utilities, but it is not—it is a monopoly private provider. Customers in the south-west cannot choose where they get their water from. Admittedly there is also a problem in the energy industry, but people do have a limited choice of provider for their gas and electricity.

The other reason it is completely wrong to put water in the same category as the other privatised utilities is that water is plentiful. We live in a wet country; it rains. If it stops raining, we might as well all pack up go home, but that is not going to happen—we hope. Water is not like gas, electricity or oil, where the resources are finite. The Government must challenge the assumption that water prices should always rise. Given the advances in modern technology, there are strong arguments for water bills coming down rather than going up. I ask the Minister to look carefully at the structure of the industry and the strength of the regulator. For the reasons that the hon. Member for St Ives and I have mentioned, there is a very good argument for the water regulator being much stronger than the regulators of the other privatised utilities.

The Prime Minister is fond of making speeches about crony capitalism; well, he can show us his mettle by dealing with an industry that is a private monopoly where customers have no choice. The industry has its hands round their necks, they cannot go anywhere else, they are fed up, and they do not understand the inevitability of year-on-year increases.

Of course we have to improve our outdated infrastructure, and a lot of work has been done on that. However, when I hear industry spokespeople and Ministers saying that we are about to face a terrible drought, worse than that in 1976, I wonder why the industry and the Government have not looked more carefully at the idea of water trading, which I think has been mentioned by a Government Member. Why do we not pipe water from the Severn catchment area, where it is plentiful, to the Thames catchment area? That could be done quite cheaply. It is not hugely expensive or terrible for climate change, as the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks. A similar thing could be done across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) mentioned reservoir capacity.

There is no reason why in this country, which has a cool, temperate climate with plenty of rain, we should pay such high prices for our water. We should not accept inexorable rises year on year, particularly when families are feeling the pinch. I share the admiration of the hon. Member for St Ives for the current management of South West Water. However, in the increases that that company and the rest of the industry have asked for in this financial year and the next, they have not shown the sensitivity that they might have shown to the state of household finances.

[Richard Benyon]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read our water White Paper, which addressed many of the points that he is making. It was long overdue in doing so. It is important that water companies talk to each other about bulk trading, moving water and the connectivity between water company areas. That is precisely what the White Paper sought to achieve. It addressed a long-standing problem.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I look forward to the recommendations in the White Paper being implemented in legislation. I hope that that will happen in the next Session and that we will not have to wait another year or more, but there is talk of the legislative process being clogged up by House of Lords reform. We need this legislation as soon as possible to address the problem once and for all.

I will end my remarks on this point. The Bill is a welcome development, as far as it goes. Of course the £50 cut is welcome, regardless of the fact that it will be wiped out by the big increases in water bills this year and next. However, it is only a temporary solution to the problem in the south-west and nationally. Although it will assuage the public anger in the south-west over the cost of water bills temporarily, if those bill continue to go up every year, this bit of help will be but a distant memory in a few years’ time. I address my final remark as much to those on the Opposition Front Bench as to the Government. Whoever is in power has to grasp this nettle once and for all and reform this industry properly, so that it operates for the benefit of the consumer and the customer.

Flood Defences (Exeter)

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing the debate on a matter that is of great concern to his constituents. Nothing would please me more than to be able to protect the nearly 4,000 properties that are currently at risk in Exeter. I hope that we can make progress in the coming months and have a scheme in place as quickly as possible.

I am sympathetic to the need to improve the existing flood defences in Exeter. First, let me be clear on the record that flood and coastal erosion risk management is an absolute priority for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government are committed to protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion where it is sustainable and affordable to do so. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of spending. I want this to be a constructive debate that focuses on the needs of his constituents, but we are talking about a 6% difference in this spending round compared with the previous spending round. In the context of cuts to Departments such as DEFRA of approximately 30%, that shows the absolute priority that we are giving flood and coastal erosion risk management, coupled with the efficiencies being found in the Environment Agency budget to spend more on the front line and on the partnership funding, which I will come on to talk about and which will be important for the aspirations of his constituents.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I have no desire to turn the debate into political ping-pong, but Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency, talked about a cut in cash terms of approximately 27%. The figures for capital investment by DEFRA for flooding work between 2010-11, the last figure of Labour spend, and 2011-12, are £354 million down to £259 million—a 27% cut in anyone’s terms.

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in DEFRA, will understand that these things are done in spending rounds. Very few flood schemes go from conception to commissioning in one year, which is why we base it over a spending review period. The excellent chairman of the Environment Agency will confirm—our figures have been sent to the Public Accounts Committee—that there is a 6% difference. The last Chancellor in the previous Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, announced shortly before the general election that there would be 50% capital cuts in budgets. I will be generous to the right hon. Gentleman and say that if his party had won the general election it would not have cut the capital budget by 50%, but it would certainly have cut it. I think that he would have also implemented all the recommendations of the Pitt review into those very damaging floods in 2007, part of which form the basis of the partnership funding system that we have introduced, and part of which resulted in the implementation of local flood risk management through lead local flood authorities. That is very important for communities such as his, and I hope that we can work together constructively in the coming months to achieve a result for those people.

It is the nature of flood and coastal defence investment that there are always more projects than national budgets can afford at any one time—there always have been and, sadly, always will be. Some 5.2 million homes are at risk from flooding and we want to protect as many of them as possible. Funding has always needed to be prioritised, and that would be the case even if capital budgets had not been reduced in the spending review.

As we have heard today, the Environment Agency is developing an option for Exeter that is expected to cost £25 million over its lifetime. Under the new partnership funding system, that might attract approximately £13 million funded by the general taxpayer. That leaves a shortfall of £12 million. Many schemes are funded totally by the taxpayer. What we have now in our partnership funding scheme is a totally transparent system. For years, communities such as the right hon. Gentleman’s wanted schemes like this to go ahead, always believing that total funding by the taxpayer would be available, but always just missing out and never knowing why—now they can see a transparent funding system.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the “independent” Environment Agency. It is part of DEFRA; it is the Government in terms of spending flood money. The people in the Environment Agency are the experts. They have developed that transparent funding system on the lines of the recommendations of the Pitt review and have come up with the scoring for what can be achieved for his community.

Exeter is an excellent example of why we have had to change the funding approach and introduce the partnership funding scheme. The new approach follows recommendations made by Sir Michael Pitt’s review of the 2007 flooding, in which he said that local communities should be allowed and encouraged to invest in flood risk management measures so that more can be done and more schemes can be introduced. He also said that future investment plans should not simply assume that the cost of flood alleviation is met centrally. Those recommendations were accepted fully by the Government. If we had carried on with the old system, we would be placing an ever-increasing burden on the general taxpayer to meet the long-term costs of flood defence alone. Those costs are expected to rise considerably with our changing climate, as the right hon. Gentleman predicted in his speech.

The old system artificially constrained how much could be done in each town and city because Government funding has always been, and always will be, limited. The old system meant that schemes were either funded in full, or not at all, based on top-down decisions. Many worthwhile schemes, such as in Exeter, were knocked back for funding, in many cases without a realistic prospect of ever going forward. At a cost of £25 million, the Exeter scheme would have been in that category, doomed never to have had a high enough priority for full funding. Transparency and greater local involvement is at the heart of the new partnership funding system. Instead of meeting the full costs of a limited number of schemes, national funds are spread further in order to achieve more overall. Many schemes will continue to be fully funded, where value for taxpayers’ money is sufficiently strong.

In other cases, such as Exeter, national funding is available to part-fund the project. This approach creates space within the system for local and private contributions to help pay for the significant benefits to land, property, infrastructure and other assets realised when defences are built. There are potentially many sources of funding to tap in to, both public and private.

Last year, the community of Morpeth found itself in a similar position to Exeter. The proposed scheme in that area did not meet the old criteria for full funding, so it was deferred, potentially indefinitely. Under the new approach, the Government were able to meet around half of the costs of the scheme. Leadership was shown by Northumberland county council, meaning that the scheme is now fully funded and will proceed in the coming months, with half the money—coincidentally, up to £12 million—met from local sources. This example shows the power of the new system, and there are many others that I would like to point to; this is important in addressing one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points.

In south Derbyshire, Nestlé contributed £1.7 million to a £7 million scheme to protect 1,600 homes and further financial contributions have been made from industry and other means. In other areas, the planning system has been used to unlock schemes, whether through section 106 money or some other form of funding, rather like exception site housing schemes in rural communities. The income from those schemes goes to deal with flood and coastal erosion risk management. In respect of another scheme in York, York city council is finding the money to bring it above the line.

The new system has already helped secure £72 million of external funding for schemes in the next three years—more than 500% higher than during the previous spending period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The Government are determined that no food waste should go to landfill. Recent figures show a 13% reduction in annual UK household food waste since 2006. That is welcome, but we are undertaking a number of actions to divert food from landfill, including a voluntary agreement with the hospitality and food sector, which will be launched in the spring, and our anaerobic digestion loan, the first of which—an £800,000 loan to an AD plant in Wiltshire—has just gone ahead.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the close correlation between high recycling rates, low landfill use and local authorities operating alternate weekly collections? Is he also aware that a recent survey by the Western Morning News showed that not a single local authority in the south-west is going to accept the cash bung from the Communities Secretary to reintroduce weekly non-recyclable collections? Will he tell the Communities Secretary that that money could be much better spent?

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman knows something that nobody else does, because no announcement has been made on which local authorities are accessing the scheme. I can assure him that it is a matter for local authorities; it is for them to discuss with their local electorate how they manage their waste policies, and it is for them to access the scheme, if they wish.

Water White Paper

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I have looked very carefully at that issue, and as my hon. Friend will know we are in the process of a very exciting change in how we manage our waterways, in transferring British Waterways to the charitable sector. There remains the opportunity to use our canals to move water around, but the sad truth is that water is an extremely heavy substance, and it is very carbon-intensive to move it very far. The economic assessments that I have seen state that to move water much more than 30 miles is uneconomic, but through a range of different measures we start to see that, with interconnectors, we can incentivise water companies to use a variety of means to move water from neighbouring areas to theirs. Then, we can start moving a trickle of water from areas of high rainfall to areas of low rainfall.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are implementing the part of Anna Walker’s review that will bring relief at last to consumers in the south-west, although I note, of course, that our bills will still be more than £100 more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister say a little more about infrastructure? The thing that puzzles many members of the public is that we live in a wet, temperate climate with lots of rainfall, and yet we constantly talk about having droughts. What more can the Government do to increase the capacity of reservoirs and other infrastructure to avoid that happening?

[Richard Benyon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. Of course, he is right. We want to encourage water companies to continue to invest. A key element of the White Paper is to send a very clear message to the investor community that we value the nearly £100 billion of investment in our infrastructure over the past 22 years and want to see more of it in future. There have been two intentions in that direction: first, not to spook investors by giving the wrong indications about how we want to proceed on competition; and secondly, to say to the investor community, “This is a place of safety and security where you can invest for the long term.” We will still require greater infrastructure and elements of construction that will make our economy and our environment more resilient to the kinds of weather changes that are happening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The fish in our seas are a national resource and what we are talking about, in the reform of this failed policy, is getting a fairer system for the allocation of that resource. Transferable fishing concessions in other countries are sometimes a lever towards better conservation, but I reassure my hon. Friend and fishermen in her constituency that we are not happy with the proposal that has been made thus far. We think it requires much more detail and there are certain elements of it to which we are opposed. We will keep her and the House informed at every stage.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept that, however the common fisheries policy is reformed, the biggest threat to fish stocks in our waters and internationally is unsustainable commercial fishing? Given that, what is he doing to ensure that all public procurement of fish in this country, including by this place, is from sustainable sources?

[Richard Benyon]

I am pleased to report, if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard, that the Government are announcing Government buying standards at the highest level, commensurate with the Olympic standard, which is considered to be the relevant level of sustainability. Across Government, we will procure fish only from sustainable sources.

Water and Sewerage Charges (South West Water)

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

My understanding is that that is the figure over the piece. However, I am happy to look into that and give my hon. Friend an absolutely clear and unequivocal answer, because it is important that we know that figure. In her earlier remarks, I think she raised the point about why we use the retail prices index rather than the consumer prices index. [Interruption.] Sorry it was not her; it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. Bills have been tied to inflation since privatisation because, when inflation is higher, water companies’ costs increase. As is the case with other regulators, Ofwat uses RPI. Although RPI was higher than CPI this year, it was actually lower than CPI when last year’s bills were calculated, so average bills that year were lower. We can argue about percentage points, but that is an important factor. Let us take that matter forward in our consultation, which I will come to in a moment.

I am acutely aware that nobody wants to see higher bills, particularly in these tough economic times. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the money raised will pay for £159 million of investment in the region during the next financial year, which will benefit customers. I know that that sounds trite, and I am not diminishing the effect of the increase, but we must recognise that there are also benefits, including £14 million to improve tap water quality, £10 million to repair crumbling sewers and £28 million to further reduce pollution incidents.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Given the severe squeeze on family incomes, would it not have been better for South West Water to have delayed some of that expensive investment and to have frozen the rise? The Minister seems to be giving the impression that the Government do not bear any responsibility for inflation, but it is, of course, his Government who have let inflation rip.

[Richard Benyon]

I chose to ignore the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks about the Government being responsible for the rise in inflation at a time when commodity prices and oil prices are rising. He only has to read the newspapers to see what is happening to food prices and how that is being influenced by so many other different factors. I think I shall move on, because I simply do not accept his point.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Why is inflation in Britain more than twice as high as it is in Germany?

[Richard Benyon]

We could debate that at great length and talk about our reliance on oil, how that might differ from other countries, where we were working from a year ago and the impact of the previous Government’s activities, of whom he was a part. I will be happy to have that debate at another time but, at the moment, I want to talk about the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the impact of the increase in water bills. I also want to talk about the actions that are in my power to take to improve that. I am happy to take any interventions that he may wish to make on that.

We have been carefully considering Ofwat’s final advice in relation to the south-west, which I only received in January. These are difficult issues, and, as has been said, there are no simple solutions. It is essential to ensure that our proposals are workable, fair and affordable, particularly in the current economic climate. We hope to issue our consultation on the Walker review soon, but it is essential that we get this right.

Hon. Members have discussed the differential between metered and unmetered bills. The average bill for a metered household in the south-west is around £400, while the average bill for an unmetered household is around £720. Hon. Members have given examples where both types of bill are considerably higher than those averages. That is because—as we have heard—70% of households in the south-west are metered. Average metered and unmetered bills reflect the estimated water consumption between those households. Unmetered households pay more, because, on average, they use more water than metered households. As hon. Members are aware from previous debates, bills vary between companies. That reflects the cost of providing water and sewerage services in an environmentally sustainable way in different regions with different circumstances.

In all cases, Ofwat—as the independent economic regulator of the water industry—ensures that bills are no higher than they need to be to finance the investment required to provide water and sewerage services. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and others have discussed how unfair it is that 3% of the population pay to clean up 30% of the coastline, and I know that that is the prevailing view in the south-west. The Walker review looked closely at whether environmental improvements are public or private goods and who should pay for them. Anna Walker concluded that spending on environmental improvements, such as cleaner beaches, is largely required to make sure that the disposal of sewage does not harm the local environment and that the benefits are mainly local. In particular, having a sewage system and beautiful clean beaches delivers huge benefits to the region through tourism. I know that there are many people—I am one of them—who enjoy the beaches and the coastline, but who do not pay those bills. The complication of trying to devise a scheme where we can hypothecate is something that not just I, but my predecessors and many others in this House, have sought to tackle.

Support is available now for low-income and vulnerable households. Currently, the national WaterSure tariff caps the bills of qualifying households at the average metered bill for their company. Households qualify for WaterSure if they are metered and in receipt of means-tested benefits, and either have three or more children living at home under the age of 19, or someone in the household who has a medical condition that necessitates a high use of water.

Individual cases were raised today. As they were described to me, those people should qualify, but are not receiving WaterSure. I want to take those cases up. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raised a case about a multiple sclerosis sufferer. I would like to know whether multiple sclerosis has an increased water requirement, and why that case is not covered by WaterSure. That is something that we may have to look at through the consultation that we are about to undertake.

WaterSure ensures that such households do not cut back on their essential use of water due to fears about the size of their bill. This year, some 31,200 households are benefiting from WaterSure and approximately one in three of those households live in the south-west. We are looking at whether WaterSure should offer a more generous cap, which could cap bills at the lower of the national average metered bill, or the company average metered bill, as recommended by Anna Walker. That would deliver substantially lower bills for those households that live in high-cost areas. We are also looking at whether it would be more fair to share the cost of WaterSure across customers in England, rather than fund WaterSure at the company-specific level. We will be inviting views on that when we publish our Walker consultation.

Some have asked why the Government have not made those changes already. We have been considering them alongside Ofwat’s advice on tackling the problem of high water bills in the south-west. I received Ofwat’s final advice only in January. I am sure that hon. Members agree with me that we must ensure that our proposals are workable, fair and have the support of interested parties. I am determined, as I have said frequently—I make no apologies for saying it again, although I wish that we had got there by now—to get this right.

Flood Defence Allocations

Debate between Lord Benyon and Ben Bradshaw

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

We very much want to gear things towards a system where the benefits can be understood by people. That is why the payment-for-outcomes scheme offers so much potential; it offers clarity, for the first time, where the current system is opaque. It will allow communities such as my hon. Friend’s to see where they are in the pecking order, why they are constantly overtaken as our understanding of flood risk management gets better and where they are missing out. Thus, when people and businesses are benefiting, they may choose to contribute and get their scheme above the line. This approach offers her and her constituents a great opportunity.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Can the Minister please explain how the cuts that he is being forced to confirm to the House today are consistent with a very clear assurance given by the Prime Minister to this House during Prime Minister’s questions on 17 November? He said that flood defence spending would be “protected” and would be “roughly the same” as under Labour.

[Richard Benyon]

I hope that we will be able to prove at the end of this process that the spending is broadly the same: an 8% cut compared with the previous four years, but with 15% efficiency savings that we think we can get out of the Environment Agency and a greater understanding of how we can deliver. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that what really matters is the outcome: households protected from flooding. I am really confident that at the end of this process we will be able to produce outcomes that are no worse than those in the past and perhaps even better.