Ash Dieback Disease
Debate between Alison Seabeck and Mary Creagh(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh
It is much more likely that the disease spread from imported seedlings transplanted from nursery stock than that it blew in, on great gusts, over the North sea. We will examine that in more detail later. [Interruption.] Ministers can chunter; the science is not politically convenient for them, but we will stick to what continental scientists have discovered until those facts are disproved.
The disease was discovered in imported saplings in February this year. When did the public first hear that the infection was on UK soil? Was it in April, when Ministers were told that it had been discovered in a nursery? No. Was it in June, when it was discovered in newly planted sites, and there was increased risk to mature woodland, as the disease could blow in from those sites? No, it was not. We finally heard on 25 October, when the Secretary of State announced that he would ban ash imports during Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions in the House—a full eight months after the disease first appeared.
Ministers could have started the consultation on a ban back in April, instead of leaving it until the end of August. The question on everyone’s lips is: “Why didn’t they?” The Secretary of State told the House on 25 October:
“The minute we heard about this, we launched a consultation.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1066.]
Does he understand that a consultation is not a ban? Why did Ministers keep the public in the dark? This really matters, because scientists have lost eight months in our fight against ash dieback, as the diseased leaves have already fallen. I congratulate the university of East Anglia on its ashtag.org app and website, but what a shame it did not know that there was a problem in April, when Ministers did. Ministers’ incompetence has meant that we are behind the curve of the disease’s spread. This matters because we, the public, who love our forests, may have unwittingly spread the disease from June to October, the main fruiting season for the fungus. Had we known in spring, we could have completed a comprehensive survey this summer, using public good will. Ministers’ incompetence has helped the disease spread and will cost the taxpayer money.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need for public awareness. The nursery men—the people working closest to the new saplings coming in, and planting them out—say exactly the same: they were unaware. This is a very complex issue. Some 7,000 young saplings have been burned near Honiton, and the disease has turned up south-west of Exeter; we are really worried in the south-west. Should the Government not have given more information earlier?
Mary Creagh
If the Government had blown the whistle when Ministers first found out in April, the saplings would probably have been destroyed earlier, but nursery owners would not have lost the income that they spent over the summer tending and caring for those saplings, and they certainly would not have entered into any more contracts. The problem is that they have entered into contracts to buy from overseas, and that will be hugely problematic. Nursery owners have planted the tree seed and spent the money, and all those saplings will now be burned. Also, there has been unprecedented tree planting this year to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee. That tree-planting effort by the nation to mark a very special event in the nation’s life could unwittingly have spread the disease, so Ministers’ incompetence has cost money.
I want to finish with a chronology of what happened. Even when the ban was announced, it was done quietly. The Minister of State, who is pretty heroic in these sorts of things—he gets all these battlefield commissions—was forced to come to the House to answer my urgent question. There had been no written statement from the Secretary of State and no oral statement. Why are the Government so keen not to talk about ash dieback?
On Friday 2 November, the Secretary of State convened Cobra to discuss the emergency response to ash dieback. That same day, a briefing letter went out—but only to Government MPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) raised a point of order with the Speaker about this extraordinary behaviour. Does the Minister not think that, with a national emergency of this size and scale, her Majesty’s Opposition should be kept informed? Why was only one part of the House informed? Do our constituents not deserve to know what is happening to their trees? [Interruption.] I just want to finish this point about biosecurity. May I warn the Minister about the dangers of contradictory advice? The Secretary of State has advised people to wash their children and their dogs when they go to a wood to make sure that they do not transfer the disease to the next wood. On Monday 5 November, however, Martin Ward, chief plant health officer at DEFRA, contradicted him on the “Today” programme:
“It’s not a matter of scrubbing off all of the soil from boots. It’s just a matter of cleaning off the dead leaves…to stop the disease moving…from one site to another.”
Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill
Debate between Alison Seabeck and Mary Creagh(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh
The right hon. Lady might want to answer her own question. We commissioned the Walker report, which said that Ofwat should do a six-monthly league table of water companies showing the best and worst performers. She has had 18 months. Has she implemented the recommendations of the Walker report? She has made her own guidance to water companies on social tariffs voluntary, not mandatory, and I fail to see how allowing them to choose whether to implement them will help customers.
Alison Seabeck
Perhaps I can shed some light on what was going on under the previous Government. In the Plymouth south-west area, a detailed pilot was undertaken to identify people for whom water was unaffordable. That was to feed through into forward policy development. Anna Walker used that as part of the basis for some of the work that she did, so it is not true that we were not considering how to reach the people who needed help.
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is clear that much work was done in the south-west because it has the highest penetration of WaterSure customers and the highest rate of metered households, despite the fact that water is plentiful in the south-west, so it has nothing to do with scarcity. It has to do with people making a rational economic choice and understanding that if they move to metered bills, their costs will go down.
The Government should be using existing data about benefits to ensure that everyone who is eligible is on the WaterSure tariff. I hope we have described the heavy lifting that we did on that tariff. Last year the Government consulted on taking on the costs of WaterSure and absorbing them at a cost to the Exchequer of £10 million a year, as opposed to continuing the cross-subsidy. This idea was dropped from the water White Paper. What has happened to that notional £10 million? Why is it not being used to part-fund company social tariffs or a wider tariff to help the wider population?
Londoners will see their bills rise by £70 to £80 a year when the Thames tunnel is finished in, we hope, 2020. London has some of the poorest people in the country and a significant number living in water poverty. WaterSure will not help most of them. It is imperative that company social tariffs are introduced well before the Thames tunnel is completed to minimise the financial impact on Londoners, yet the Government’s draft guidance on company social tariffs shows that they are adopting a minimalist approach.
The Government have ruled out data sharing, which is key to helping water companies identify customers in water poverty and enabling them automatically to reduce their bill, which is obviously the least painful way, rather than allowing people to get into water debt and then taking action through the courts to pursue the money. They have ruled out an affordability scheme administered nationally, and they have ruled out an extension of WaterSure, which is the only national social tariff. Under DEFRA’s draft guidance, the design of social tariff schemes is left entirely to the water companies. Indeed, it is their choice whether to implement a scheme at all. This is the big society in action: a postcode lottery for millions of customers facing water poverty. We believe that it is untenable for the Government to pass a water financial assistance Bill without providing any assistance to the rest of the country. We will pursue amendments that would oblige water companies to deliver a social tariff scheme that meets clear and uniform criteria.
Petitions
Debate between Alison Seabeck and Mary Creagh
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
The petition is against the withdrawal of the taxibus services in Plymouth from Glenholt down through to the city.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Plymouth, Moor View constituency and others,
Declares that the petitioners are unhappy with the decision to withdraw the taxibus service that serves the residents in the north of Plymouth; notes that residents in St Budeaux and Weston Mill use this bus to access their GP surgery, dentist, shops and other community facilities; and further declares that the withdrawal of this service will cause major inconvenience to residents.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage local authorities to support local taxibus services to avoid these vital public transport services being removed.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000847]
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on free swimming.
The petition states:
The Petition of Mrs Priscilla Whisker and residents of Wakefield constituency, and others,
Declares that HM Government’s decision to cut the previous Labour government's free swimming scheme from 1 August 2010 will make it more difficult for under 16 and over 60 year olds to access swimming facilities in Wakefield; further declares that the scheme was part of the 2012 Olympics legacy to get more people involved in healthy activities; further declares that there are high levels of child obesity in Wakefield; and further declares that the cuts will disproportionately affect the health of poor people in Wakefield.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Government to recognise the value of encouraging young people to take regular exercise and to learn to swim; to recognise the important health benefits of swimming to children and people over 60; to reconsider the cuts to the Swim 4 Free local authority grant support; and to reinstate the Swim 4 Free grant support to local authorities from 1 August 2010.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000848]