Wild Animals (Circuses)

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Flello]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman; it does indeed place an extra burden, an extra duty, on the Minister. I repeat the point that, if the legal advice is so overwhelming, we should be able to scrutinise it.

I shall take a step back and set out our recent journey to this point. Circuses existed long before wild animals became a feature. Indeed, it is often said that the Roman circuses were the foundation for what we know today. The use of animals in circuses probably dates back to the early 18th century, when exotic animals were put on display. The year 1833 is often cited, as that was when big cats were first seen in a cage act at a circus. Interestingly, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed in that year, as was the Factory Act that limited child labour—a connection that is slightly ironic.

During the passage of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it was agreed that the use of wild animals in travelling circuses should be banned, subject to there being sufficient scientific evidence. The circus working group, chaired by Mike Radford, concluded that there was not sufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban. However, on a closer reading of the 2007 report, the conclusion seems to be that there is almost no evidence to consider—no evidence to support a ban, and no evidence to support the status quo. My reading of the Radford report is that there is no scientific data for either side to rely on.

There is another argument, however. Do we really need a report to tell us right from wrong? Does a report that says there is insufficient evidence override our moral sense of what is or is not acceptable? In the 20 years leading up to 1833, did Wilberforce say in the face of so-called evidence against him, “Oh well, that’s okay. I’ll give up now.”? No, of course not, and neither should we. I do not suggest that the owners of travelling circuses are cruel or that they mistreat their animals, but I fail to see—and looking around me, I note that colleagues who are here in support of a ban, fail to see—how keeping wild animals in mobile cages as they travel around the country, even with some respite in exercise areas, is for the best welfare of the animals concerned. Perhaps it is me, but I find it plain wrong that wild animals should be used in travelling circuses.

As an important aside, I believe that it is wholly unacceptable for circuses to be targeted for vandalism and worse. We should not descend to that level but should win the argument instead.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is absolutely right to push this issue. The Government should re-examine the legal case, so that we can move towards a ban as speedily as possible. Does he not think that a further Back-Bench debate, which many are pushing for at the moment, would give us the opportunity to re-examine the legal argument and the apparent legal impediment to a ban? We need to ensure that the Government are given the tools and the encouragement to move towards a ban as quickly as possible.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Radford report suggests that, because of the lack of scientific evidence, the legal impediment comes from the use of secondary legislation. It says that the ban could be implemented if Parliament passed primary legislation. Having not seen the legal advice, I can only speculate that that is the problem and that the Ministry is unwilling to go down the route of primary legislation.

[Andrew George]

I was referring to the EU services directive and the debateable position of the Austrians. If we can learn lessons from that, we could ensure a smooth passage towards a ban.

[Robert Flello]

Indeed, but coming back to the European services directive, the legal advice that I have seen suggests that that was not an issue. The complaint against the Austrian Government was made in 2008. The European Circus Association took Austria to the European Commission and made a complaint. The case was folded and no further action was taken. The ombudsman looked into the matter and felt that reasons should have been given. Ultimately, though, he found that the European services directive did not apply in this circumstance and that it was up to nation states to bring in their own legislation. Again, I come back to my initial point: if the Secretary of State made available the legal advice, it would be far easier to mount a challenge and for lawyers on both sides to determine whether or not it was robust. If there was a problem, they would at least be able to see it in the open.

The 2007 Radford report noted that circuses have hesitated to update cages and facilities because of the uncertainty. It said then that the status quo was unsustainable, and that was getting on for four years ago. It says that we cannot continue in this way. The Government’s own impact assessment says that human rights are not an issue and legal advice says that the European services directive is not an issue, so what is the issue?

As Members already know, circuses are exempt from the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 does not address the welfare requirements of performing animals, and as I have mentioned previously, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 can be hard to bring to bear when circuses are travelling around the country. Where does that leave us? In my view, it leaves us quite rightly pushing for a total ban on wild animals in travelling circuses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I did not realise that there would be so little competition for the opportunity to enter the debate. I have already thanked the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for securing it for us. My timidity was purely because I thought that it would be ill-mannered of me to seek an early speech in the debate given the fact that I will need to leave before it concludes, but as I do not seem to be preventing others from speaking, I will proceed.

I mentioned earlier that by asking the Minister to bring out the legal advice that supported his position, I seek only to aid him. It would certainly shed a lot of light on the situation for many Members. It is a matter of disappointment to me that that will not be possible, but I am sure that we all look forward to the Minister’s comments as he tries to explain his position.

Various legal impediments have been presented to the case for bringing an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. Some people have spoken about human rights issues, but the Government, in their consultation, made it clear that they did not believe that was an impediment. Others have looked at the European services directive, which is an interesting case but not one that prevents the UK from legislating as it sees fit on the matter of animal welfare; I recognise that it would require primary legislation.

Given that a ban is in place in Denmark and that Austria has taken measures, we would not be standing alone in that respect. We are not in the position that our views are wholly out of line with those elsewhere in the European Union. Forming public policy to protect animals from cruelty is certainly a legitimate ground for taking legislative action. We have yet to see the legal advice that has prompted this case. It is not for me to claim to be a legal expert on the matter, so I look forward to hearing further clarification.

The key issue about taking action, which has emerged from our discussions both here and in the main Chamber, rests on the potential exposure of the UK to a legal challenge. That is clear given what happened to the case in Austria. I urge the Minister to keep the situation under constant review. If the facts and the threat of legal challenge change, we want the Government to be able to take action. Will the Minister tell us if he is willing to look at the issue as events unfold, or indeed fail to unfold, in other parts of Europe?

At the end of the day, for many of my constituents, this is not a matter of legal nicety. It is about expressing our values in our society. We are prepared to do that on other matters of animal welfare, and there is no reason why circuses should not come under such concerns.

[Andrew George]

Like my hon. Friend and doubtless many others, I would have liked to contribute further to this debate but unfortunately I too have to be elsewhere shortly for another meeting. Nevertheless, I wish the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who secured the debate, great success in advancing the cause.

I want to respond to the point that my hon. Friend has just made. Leaving aside the legal debate around the issue, there must be a debate across all Departments about whether a policy of working towards a ban on wild animals in circuses can proceed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful for DEFRA to say, in due course, whether it is minded to introduce a ban if all the other impediments to imposing a ban can be overcome?

[Duncan Hames]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that a statement of intent—of desire—by the Government would be helpful, so that our constituents would be in no doubt that the refusal so far to countenance the introduction of primary legislation to end the practice is not a political judgment but a practical one, in light of the legal impediments. A statement from the Government to express that view would certainly be very helpful.

However, in response to the urgent question that was put last month in the main Chamber on this issue, we had a somewhat more laissez-faire piece of encouragement from the Minister, when he said:

“If people are really so opposed to the use of wild animals in circuses, I suggest that they do not go to the circus.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 499.]

I am happy to take the Minister’s advice, but to be honest I do not think that his response is sufficient. That type of response has certainly not been considered in relation to many other issues of animal welfare. For example, when it comes to the regulation of practices within abattoirs, it would not be sufficient simply to tell people not to eat meat. People who eat meat expect good standards and I know that the Minister’s Department is keen to ensure that good standards are upheld. In recent months, concerns have been expressed about other animal welfare issues, for example in horse racing, and it would not have been sufficient for people simply to have turned off the television set that Saturday afternoon in April.

There are other examples of animal welfare issues when such a response would not have been sufficient, for instance in relation to the fur trade. Yes, consumers, members of the public and society as a whole can take a stand and make their views clear. However, to do that alone ignores the fact that we are all part of one democratic society where we want to be able to set standards that we should all have confidence in, regardless of our personal choices, as I said just now in relation to the meat industry.

I hope that the Minister will accept that there is widespread support for action on the issue of wild animals in circuses. In the Government’s consultation, 94% of respondents wanted an end to the use of wild animals in circuses. In addition, 26,000 people signed the petition that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South referred to in his speech. That petition was also supported by many respected organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the Born Free Foundation and the Captive Animals Protection Society. I hope that we can find a way through the current impasse.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Lady needs to reflect on the proceedings she has just mentioned, because they are very different from that which is under discussion now. Those situations involved European member states taking action at European level, whereas this situation involves a single member state, and we believe that if we take this action we may well be infringing European law, to which we are committed.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

A reference in Friday’s statement to the legal context of a ban is relevant only if the Department had been seriously considering a ban. Will the Minister therefore enlighten the House about that and tell us whether the Government would review the situation and consider an outright ban if the legal impediment could be overcome?

[Mr Paice]

I assure my hon. Friend that we considered all options, because we had the benefit of the consultation that the previous Government had initiated and the responses to it. Clearly, however, on the basis of the information and advice we received, we believed a ban was not the right way to proceed. We wanted to be able to act swiftly, and we can do that through a very strict licensing regime. I must repeat to the House that very tough standards will be imposed on how these animals can be kept, and it is possible that circus owners will not be able to meet those standards, in which case we will have achieved a ban without having to pass primary legislation.

Waste Reduction

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams]

Again, the hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We have long experience of such things in Wales. In the south-east an incineration plant caused tremendous worry to local people for many years because of the release of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. As I understand it, there are proposals to place a large incinerator in Merthyr Tydfil. There is also talk of an incinerator in the Wrexham area, which is upwind from large English conurbations and could have implications for people outside Wales. There has been much controversy over those plans and the possible health effects, and any research on the subject will be welcomed.

I want to refer to a recycling partnership that exists in my constituency between the local authority and social enterprises, and to the employment opportunities that that has provided. The Government have said that they have two ambitions: to have a zero-waste economy and to be the greenest Government ever. Obviously, tackling waste offers an opportunity to create a more resource-efficient and competitive economy, to create jobs and to save money.

It is gratifying that the generation of household waste continues to decrease and that the public’s enthusiasm for recycling is clearly growing. Recycling sites now rival garden centres at the weekend as places to socialise—I had a peculiar experience in that regard the other day. The recycling rate in England is 40.3%, according to the latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. However, that figure is behind the best in Europe—our ambition is to be the best, and the best rate in Europe is 70%-plus. The rate for Wales in the third quarter of 2010 was 45%, so in Wales we are slightly ahead of the game as far as England is concerned. The figure for the last quarter of 2010 in Wales was 42%. Of course, there is a drop-off in the winter months because there is less garden waste, but in Wales we are still somewhat ahead.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I want to refer back to a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. Does he not think that a more appropriate measure for any Government, be they a devolved Administration or the UK Government, involves consideration of waste arisings, rather than recycling? As he said, the issue is avoiding waste going into the waste stream in the first place, whether it consists of products for recycling or otherwise. For example, rather than recycling products through recycling banks, one could take part in a bottle deposit scheme, as I do in respect of my doorstep milk collections; reusing bottles rather than recycling them is surely a better option than simply measuring recycling rates.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Of course, there are questions about the durability of the bottles being recycled. Will we get the right bang for our buck by recycling? There are questions about transportation, the weight of glass and so on. However, the thrust of the point is excellent. I am old enough to remember getting a penny, or a penny ha’penny, back on a bottle of lemonade and I look back to those days with—well, I am showing my age now.

The targets for Wales are 70% recycling by 2025 and zero waste by 2050, so they are very ambitious. Without praising the previous Plaid Cymru-Labour Government too much, I shall say that Wales is the first country in the UK to adopt statutory recycling targets for municipal waste, following a Measure passed by the Assembly. It was one of the first measures that the Assembly managed to pass on its own. The Waste (Wales) Measure 2010 received royal approval in December. The first statutory recycling target set under that Measure is 52% by 2012. Clearly, therefore, there is a pace of activity in Wales that I am sure will be interesting to people over the border.

Wales is also the only country in the UK in which every local authority offers a separate food or food and green waste collection. That is the case throughout the country. It was the first country to introduce the landfill allowance scheme and it looks as though it will be the first to introduce a carrier bag charge, in October 2011. We will see, of course, but that is the intention and it has widespread support. My local authority, Gwynedd, achieved a recycling rate of 44% in 2010-11 and, I hope, will achieve the target of 52% in 2013.

[Hywel Williams]

Speaking generally, I think that there is a political consensus in Wales anyway. In the recent election, it was sometimes difficult to see the difference even between a party of government and a party of opposition. There is a consensus on these issues and there is a tradition. I was talking to someone about this the other day. We used to call the rubbish not the rubbish, but the salvage—what we would be salvaging from rubbish. There is a long tradition of that. I have no idea what the basis is for what the hon. Gentleman refers to, but perhaps what is important is the outcome—a higher recycling rate.

My local authority is introducing weekly food collections. There had been concern about bi-weekly collections and possible dangers to health. The authority is bringing in weekly food collections, with a target for the amount collected by 2013. As I said earlier, it works with two third-sector organisations: Antur Waunfawr and Seren. They sort high-quality plastics and will be moving to lower-quality plastics quite soon. They also collect textiles. Those activities produce not only an income stream for the organisations involved, but 35 jobs for people with learning difficulties at Antur Waunfawr, so it is a win-win situation.

Antur also runs a furniture recycling scheme and a confidential waste shredding scheme for 450 customers throughout north Wales, including MPs such as myself, and it is now employing five young people on apprenticeships in recycling. There is a great deal of progress. The chief executive of Antur, Menna Jones, recently said to me—I am translating—“I don’t know about the big society, but small social enterprises are achieving a lot.” There is a good deal to emulate over the border.

At the same time, Friends of the Earth is pressing for another approach—halving residual waste by 2020. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that. Targeting the reducing of residual waste—black bag waste that cannot be recycled—would reward waste prevention, reuse and recycling, as well as reducing the use of landfill and incineration. Friends of the Earth argues that zero waste must not mean zero waste to landfill, with some being diverted to incineration. It points out the inverse correlation between incineration and recycling.

Denmark has a very high level of incineration but a low level of recycling. There might be a causal relationship there. Friends of the Earth points to other European examples. Flanders has a ban on landfill or incineration of unsorted waste; it also has a very big network of reuse shops. Irish local authorities can levy a charge on waste incineration, and similar taxes exist in Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. There is a great deal that can be learned not only over the border within the UK, but from other European countries.

I said earlier that this is real nappy week; indeed, that is what led me to apply for the debate in the first place. Earlier this year, I visited a small company in my constituency called BabyKind. I should say that I have no particular interest in that company, but I was impressed by its enterprise, by its commitment to its products and customers and by its enthusiasm for the wider cause of promoting environmental sustainability.

Some people might think that my referring to real nappies in this debate is eccentric or even frivolous. However, the waste produced by throwaway nappies is a significant burden. The Nappy Alliance says that 3 billion nappies are thrown away every year—8 million a day—making up 4% of household waste. That is a huge amount—a huge negative contribution to the mountain of waste. Throwaway nappies that go to landfill add to the problems that we all recognise: the increased pressure on landfill sites, the waste of land, the potential water pollution and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane.

The Nappy Alliance also states that, according to the Environment Agency, the decomposition time scale for some of the materials and chemicals used in throwaway nappies is more than 500 years, so we are storing up problems for the future. In that respect, throwaway nappies are clearly misnamed when they are called “disposable”—they are far from disposable.

Debate on this matter has been distorted, although some would go further and say that it has been plagued by misinformation, unintended or otherwise. On Monday this week, an article in a national newspaper criticised local authorities for spending money on promoting real nappies. It claimed that

“taxpayers’ money was poured into real nappy campaigns even though the notion that re-useable nappies are better for the environment was discredited years ago.”

It further claimed that there was “overwhelming evidence” in 2007 that such campaigns “were pointless”.

I believe that that claim refers to the well publicised Environment Agency life cycle analysis report on nappies in 2006, which some Members might recall. The report was prominent in the press at the time—in 2006, not 2007—and it made similar assertions, if in a less striking way. However, when the report was revised in 2008, it showed that reusable nappies could be about 40% better for the environment than throwaways. News of that revision seems to have escaped the notice of Monday’s newspaper—although I am sure that it is simply the result of a busy journalist not doing his homework.

Real nappies will directly solve much of the landfill problem, being reused and even passed on to be used by other children, as recently happened in my family. Their use offers local authorities an excellent cost saving. According to the Nappy Alliance, the cost of disposing of throwaway nappies in England is £90 million per year. Real nappies also fit into the waste hierarchy at a much higher level than throwaways, which are poor fuel for incineration and tend to go for disposal. They are also higher in the hierarchy than recycling, and that too should be borne in mind, given that some look to incentivise recycling while ignoring waste minimisation and reuse. That is another point for the future.

I realise that I have ranged fairly broadly in my speech, but it is necessary to set the matter in context. However, I draw the Minister’s attention to the question posed by Friends of the Earth about the definition of zero waste. Is it zero to landfill, or is it in fact zero? I would also like to know what his Department is doing to promote the reuse of real nappies.

[Andrew George]

Before the hon. Gentleman draws his remarks to a conclusion, I wonder whether he would like to comment on the opportunities for business in recycling. For example, scrap metal merchants will be found in all constituencies and those who remember the Corona bottle referred to earlier will remember that licensed totters on every municipal site regularly recycled items. Those are honourable professions, but they are often pushed to the margins of society and treated badly. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that those people and professions should be harnessed and given a central place in our business response to the need to reduce the waste stream?

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The Steptoe image is way out of date; indeed, it was out of date in the 1960s. There is clearly a huge market for reused materials, and if the constabulary keep an eye on our manhole covers I would be very much in favour of continuing with it.

Will the Minister assure the House that his Department is working closely with the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Administration, as well as on a wide range of matters in the European context? There is one small niggle, but others might raise it. Welsh authorities are doing rather well—for instance, Anglesey and Denbighshire are now recycling 57 %—but there is a sneaking suspicion that this might lead other authorities to slacken in their drive to reach 50% by 2020. I hope that that does not happen.

Fisheries

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Fishermen all around our coast are trying very hard to avoid this appalling waste, and I have yet to meet a fisherman who supports the current rules, so I echo what he says.

As all Members will know, reform of the CFP is complicated and hugely contentious, but whatever reforms are agreed, they must include a discard ban. We know that there are alternatives. For example, we could replace landing quotas with catch quotas so that by-catch that would otherwise be discarded had to be landed. The UK has already been piloting a scheme for cod involving six vessels in England and 17 in Scotland, and results so far suggest that it is working. Discards of cod are down to, I believe, between 1% and 7%. In addition, fishermen are using more selective gear and managing to catch more valuable fish.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I entirely support the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not wish to sound pedantic, but I hope he agrees that when we talk about fish discards, we are primarily talking about the discard of dead fish. There are many fisheries in which the poor fish, although they are no doubt traumatised, can be slipped back into the sea. Many of them are juveniles and capable of further growth.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and in fact the motion suggests a

“derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding”,

so that would include the type of catch that he mentions.

In addition to the pilots in our own waters, a discard ban has been operating since 1987 in Norway, where over-quota or unwanted species are landed for a guaranteed minimum value and sold to the fishmeal industry, with the proceeds used to reinvest in and support the fishing industry. To make a discard ban easier, we will have to do everything we can to help fishermen access and use more selective gear so that they can avoid the unwanted fish in the first place.

Consumers also have a clear role. A significant percentage of fish are discarded because there is no market for them, and the Government can boost that market through their vast procurement programme. We spend £2 billion each year on food for the wider public sector, and that is an obvious tool that the Government can use. However, there are obviously limits to what a Government can do to shape a fashion, and it is worth mentioning non-Government initiatives such as “Hugh’s Mackerel Mission”, which is intended to help stimulate new markets for less popular species. It is a valuable campaign, and I urge Members to support it.

Discards are the most visible flaw in the CFP regime, but they are only part of the problem. In addition, the motion calls for radical decentralisation, and I wish briefly to focus on that. One of the key demands from our fishing communities, and in particular from the under-10 metre fleet, is that we assert our control over what are wrongly described as our sovereign waters—the 12 nautical miles surrounding our coastline. I say “wrongly” because whereas the British Government can legally impose whatever rules and regulations they want within those waters, from six to 12 miles out those rules will apply only to British vessels. It is clear that higher standards are a good thing, but only if they are fair and we have an even playing field. That is categorically not the case in our waters.

For example, in 2004 the UK banned pair-trawling for bass within 12 miles of the south-west coast of England, to protect dolphins and porpoises. Although our own fishermen adhered to the law, the ban did absolutely nothing to prevent French and Spanish trawlers from continuing to catch bass in those waters, which was both wrong and unfair. If those rights for foreign vessels are to be retained, it seems to me that they should come with an absolute and non-negotiable obligation to adhere to our own rules. That is why the motion demands, among other things, that any reforms of the CFP must

“enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters”.

That is an absolutely fundamental issue. If we reassert our control over those waters we will not only provide welcome relief for our smaller boats against the onslaught of the factory fishing vessels, but we will be able to establish an intelligent, ecosystem-based management system and ensure the health of our fisheries indefinitely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

Yes, the Marine Conservation Society accredits species of fish caught in an environmentally friendly way—pole fishing for tuna, for example, or mackerel handlining, which is particularly important in the south-west. I understand from a question put to the Minister earlier that there is cause for concern in Cornwall about the cost of accreditation for mackerel handline fishermen.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the point I put in a question this morning. For Marine Stewardship Council accreditation, the 200 Cornish fishermen who benefit from this particular fishery have to pay £12,000 plus VAT a year in registration costs. In addition, they see that a number of rather high-impact fishing methods used elsewhere have also received accreditation, which they view as altogether downgrading the significance of MSC accreditation.

[Sheryll Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has great expertise in that subject. I applaud the way in which the Minister is trying to resolve the matter, but ask him to take a further look at the impact assessment accompanying the present consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who was absolutely right to conclude by emphasising the importance, if we are to move forward effectively, of reducing the need to discard any dead fish in the sea. We need a more sophisticated package of measures, rather than the same blunt response to the blunt instrument of quotas, which caused the problem in the first place.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), before he leaves the Chamber for a no doubt well-deserved comfort break, on having brought forward the issue and on his persistence in raising it. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the motion.

I also pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for having brought her great knowledge to bear and, in significantly difficult circumstances, raising the issue. She has warm support across the entire House for her contribution, and the House very much appreciates her widely acknowledged knowledge and expertise on the subject.

I was born and brought up in west Cornwall in my constituency. My family had a fishing boat, but my father was primarily a market gardener, so I have some experience of the issue, although far less than my hon. Friend. Many members of my family are engaged in the industry around the coast of my constituency, and I do my best to keep in contact with them in order to understand the pressures of the industry, but that certainly does not compare to my hon. Friend’s expertise.

A number of essential elements are required to move the issue forward and to make significant progress in addressing the concerns that have rightly been highlighted as a result not of only the Fish Fight campaign but of the many other campaigns that went before and highlighted precisely the same issues. I hope that the current process of reform, and the debate about the reform, of the common fisheries policy leading to 2013 will be more successful than the last.

We have inched our way forward, but the EU is like the United Nations when it comes to treaties: trying to reach an agreement across states requires tremendous diplomacy as well as the campaigning skill and zeal of many people in order to ensure that messages are properly understood, and that there are constructive proposals as well as attacks on and criticisms of the existing scheme’s failures.

In order to make such changes, there are a number of essential elements. First, we need to get right the management framework of the common fisheries policy, and it helps that we have moved the debate on in this Chamber from where it was five or six years ago, when my beloved coalition colleagues used to take the rather different view that we could unilaterally withdraw from the policy. The whole debate became a legal argument, which meant that we never had the right kind of environment—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew George]

I will in a moment, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is simply going to go back over that debate, and I just want to make this point to him. We did not have the environment that we needed to be able to have the kind of constructive debates that we now have about the management, technical and other measures that are required and can be delivered, although it takes some time. Because we could not legally withdraw from the common fisheries policy while remaining in the EU—it was technically impossible, and no one was proposing that we should withdraw entirely at that stage—we could not make that kind of progress.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend accept that six years ago his party’s policy was one of regionalisation of the common fisheries policy, and that securing the regional management that his party was promising was probably as extreme and impossible to deliver as national control?

[Andrew George]

Having given a warm tribute to my hon. Friend, I hate to find myself in significant disagreement with her. She is right that the Liberal Democrats have argued that we should have a more regionalised basis for the common fisheries policy; we have been consistent in that for the past 20 years. We have been not only consistent but right and effective, in that the regional advisory councils have now been established.

The view of the coalition Government—we are in complete agreement between the parties—is that we need to strengthen the regional advisory councils to become regional management committees, in order to give fishermen, along with other stakeholders, significant power. With that power comes responsibility. If the fishermen themselves are making the decisions about the future management of their stocks and the framework within which they operate, they will be the losers if they fail to make any progress. We have succeeded in that fundamental principle. We are making that progress, and the next reform will see us move the agenda forward significantly and positively.

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend mentioned the regional advisory councils. That is precisely what they are—advisory, so no attention has to be paid to what they decide. That is not exactly what I remember his party promising six years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

This is turning into a more partisan debate than I intended.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It’s your own fault.

[Andrew George]

I know; I blame myself. I apologise for having drawn myself into the very cul-de-sac that I was saying was the reason why we failed to make progress before.

As a result of the regional advisory councils, we were able to develop measures such as the Trevose ground closure, around the north coast of my constituency, each spring, which ensures that large numbers of vessels are not going in and plundering the stocks in that area. We have seen a significant improvement in the health of several species following that measure. The proposal was originally made and instigated by local fishermen, but rolling it out required international agreement.

[Barry Gardiner]

I seek to bolster the hon. Gentleman’s position, not to attack it. Does he agree that if we are to have truly ecosystem-based management of stock, it must be based not on regional advisory councils but on regional management?

[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.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew George]

I am sorry to say no to my hon. Friend, but I will not give way again, because of the time.

I have mentioned decentralisation. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall rightly emphasised the importance of being able to extend the inshore management limit to 12 miles, so that only those with a historical entitlement from other fishing nations can fish between the 6 and 12-mile limits.

It is important for fishermen and scientists to work together. That is increasingly happening, and it works well in other European countries. In successful fishing nations such as Norway and Sweden, fishermen and scientists work hand in glove all the time. That improves efficiency and effectiveness, and they have developed techniques that have taken them ahead and left us behind. The more we encourage a culture that enables fishermen and scientists to work together, the better it will be, because more trust will be established between the two, and there will be better assessment of stocks. We need to develop more effective methods of assessing stocks, because fishermen often rightly criticise the basis on which quota decisions are taken.

A number of measures have been identified by Government and the fishing industry to help avoid discards in the first place. I have mentioned management methods such as temporary closures, for example in the Trevose ground, which can be very effective. In a question to the Minister this morning, I mentioned the worrying decision of the Cornish mackerel handliners not to pay their annual subscription of £12,000 to the Marine Stewardship Council because they do not believe that the benefits of membership are justified by the cost. They have also identified that another fishing method, the trawling and seining of mackerel in Scotland, is accredited by the MSC. They question that, because theirs is low-impact fishing and other types have a much higher impact.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, although I may not be able to stay, because I have a train to catch at 6 o’clock. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has secured a very important debate, and I hope that, whatever basis we do it on, we shall decentralise the management of our fishery stocks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. I appreciate the efforts that he has made to accommodate the practical issues that face our fishermen, who are currently in difficult economic times.

[Andrew George]

I am sure that there is nothing to be gained from generating a dispute when fishermen share the same objective of achieving a sustainable industry. The amount of fish that Cornish mackerel handliners catch is equivalent to what one purse seine can catch in just one week. There may be issues with by-catch or other things, but the hon. Lady will surely understand people’s concerns about the impact of fishing on that scale compared with the low impact of the handlining method.

[Dr Whiteford]

Clearly that is fishing on a very different scale. The fishermen whom I represent are providing an important food source. This is not an either/or issue; rather, there is room for everybody, small producers and large producers alike. There is enough to go round—enough fish in the sea, shall we say?

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mike Park, the chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, who just last week was awarded the WWF’s 2011 global award for conservation merit in recognition of his efforts to promote sustainable fisheries. I am sure that Members across the House will want to join me in congratulating Mr Park on receiving such a prestigious international award. It is a well-deserved recognition of his leadership and a testament to the efforts of everyone in the Scottish fleet who has worked so hard to put the industry on a different and more sustainable course. The award is also a tribute to the work of WWF Scotland, which, in confounding the stereotypes of conservationists being pitted against the interests of fishing communities, has engaged with the industry constructively, recognising that sustainable fisheries must be about sustainable livelihoods for fishermen and sustainable, thriving fishing communities. I commend WWF Scotland for that.

Some of the innovative and pioneering measures that have had such a dramatic and demonstrable effect in reducing discards in Scotland offer practical ways forward in the wider European context. The use of selective fishing gear is perhaps the most obvious way to reduce unwanted by-catch, and is a key way to prevent discards. Since 2007, a voluntary system of real-time closures has been in operation in Scottish waters as a means of protecting concentrations of cod. Scotland was the first country in Europe to introduce such a scheme. When skippers encounter a high abundance of cod, they are encouraged to notify the Marine Directorate and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, and the relevant area is closed for three weeks at a time. That not only helps to protect the stocks, but helps to improve the accuracy of the science, which is often called into question.

Other important initiatives have included banning high grading in the North sea and the pelagic sector, and the use of jigging machines in the pelagic sector to enable catches to be sampled before the nets are lowered. The catch quota has been mentioned. It was not without controversy when it was first introduced, and many people were sceptical about it. However, although nobody would claim that it is a full solution to the problem in itself, applications to take part in the scheme are now exceeding the places available. It is clear that its success is starting to win over those who doubted its efficacy in the early stages.

The common fisheries policy is well past its sell-by date. Minor tinkering is no longer an option. We badly need a well-managed industry working on a regional basis with long-term planning, and with fishermen—the key stakeholders in the industry—fully brought into the heart of the process. If Ministers can deliver such a system in the European Union, they will be performing a great service to those who have for a long time called not just for an end to discards, but for an end to the system that causes them in the first place. I commend the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

When I was in opposition, I visited the hon. Lady’s constituency and talked to fishermen who were very concerned about having cameras on their boats as part of this scheme. Those concerns have now, by and large, dissipated and fishermen across the country are joining similar schemes. We have signed a declaration with France, Germany and Denmark, saying that catch quotas should be at the heart of a reformed common fisheries policy. That is really good news. I applaud the fishermen in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere; there will be no cod discarded from boats fishing from her constituency in the catch quota scheme this year.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that the 200 fishermen in the Cornish mackerel handliners association have decided not to continue their certification with the Marine Stewardship Council because they judged that the costs clearly outweighed the benefits, particularly bearing in mind that the MSC appears to have become more business-led and supermarket-driven in its standards, allowing some high-impact trawler-based methods to achieve certification?

[Richard Benyon]

Marine Stewardship Council accreditation is a highly respected brand globally, and must remain so. We must do all we can to work with it to ensure that it does remain so. I was dismayed to hear recently about the decision of the handline fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and I want all fishermen to try to get into accredited schemes like this one, which shows that they are not only fishing sustainably but accessing the market at a premium price. We want to make every effort to sustain the MRC accredited scheme.

Pig Farming

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bacon]

My right hon. Friend is correct. He might have seen my Food Labelling Regulations (Amendment) Bill, which is scheduled for Second Reading on 1 April. Should the Government wish to take this opportunity to announce that they will give it Government time, I would be only too pleased to hand it over to officials to be steered through the House. Yesterday, I was encouraged by a phone call from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asking to see a copy. It is important to say that there has been some improvement in labelling in the pork sector, but I still believe and have always maintained that the only viable long-term answer is a mandatory regime. We already have mandatory regimes for many other foodstuffs; we should have one for pork and pork products as well.

The inexorable slide into loss-making as rising feed prices have affected the industry has begun to cripple pig farmers in this country once again. The price that pig farmers pay for feed has more than doubled since 2010. Feed costs are rising faster than during the crisis of 2008, and I am afraid that the omens for the future are not good. BPEX—the British Pig Executive, which is the industry body—estimates that feed, which is generally made up of a combination of wheat, barley and soya, remains the single largest cost for British pig producers and accounts for 77% of pig farmers’ costs, up from 60% in 2009. BPEX expects food costs to remain historically high this year, and possibly beyond.

That gloomy forecast is being borne out by recent movements on the international cereals market. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations expects a tightening of the global cereal supply this year, driven by growing demand after the slump in world cereal production in 2010. According to the FAO, export prices of major grains have risen at least 70% since February last year, and global cereal stocks are expected to fall sharply due to a decline in supplies of wheat and coarse grains. Market uncertainty after the Japanese earthquake caused prices to fall from £214 a tonne in February to £170 a tonne last week, but as of last Friday, wheat prices had climbed back to £195 a tonne. As one might imagine, recent increases in the price of pig feed have had a severe impact on the cost of pig production, which has risen to £1.64 a kilogram.

However, although production costs continue to rise, the dead-weight average pig price—the price farmers receive for the pigs they produce—has fallen during the same period. In February, the DAPP stood at £1.35 a kilogram, 29p short of covering pig farmers’ costs and 12p a kilogram below the July 2010 price of £1.47 a kilogram.

Britain’s pig farmers started 2010 in a state of cautious optimism, their hope to rebuild based on the reasonably steady costs that they faced and their improved returns in 2009, but by September 2010 the industry had returned to making a loss, and by January 2011 the cost of production had risen by one third compared with 2007. According to BPEX, a farmer sending 200 pigs to slaughter in January this year stood to lose £4,500 in a single week. The pig industry is facing overall losses of £4 million a week, and farmers are estimated to be losing more than £21 on every pig produced.

Although the rising price of feed is undoubtedly a major factor in the pain being suffered by British pig farmers, it is far from being the only factor. The pressure on Britain’s pig industry caused by rising feed prices is being amplified by what can only be described as the decoupling of the supply chain. For a supply chain to work properly, manufacturers, processors and retailers must work collaboratively to bring down its costs effectively and sustainably. However, it is clear that the pressure of high feed costs is not being shared across the pigmeat supply chain. If anything, the reverse is the case. Feed manufacturers have passed on the rise in the cost of cereals to their customers—that is, pig farmers—but the costs of rising prices have stopped with farmers and are not being passed up the supply chain to producers and retailers.

The disconnect in the pigmeat supply chain can best be illustrated by the relative performance of its constituent parts in the 12 weeks up to the end of January 2011. In that period, British pig farmers suffered losses estimated at £35 million, which equates roughly to £416,000 every calendar day. However, over the same 12-week period, the processing sector made an estimated profit of £100 million, or just over £1 million a day. Retailers, including Britain’s supermarkets, which set much store by their support for British farmers, enjoyed combined profits of £192 million from pork and pork product sales, equivalent to daily profits of £2.3 million.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point about retailers, particularly supermarkets, the hon. Gentleman well knows that we hope the Government will shortly introduce the proposed supermarket adjudicator Bill. Although that cannot and should not be a price-sensitive or price-setting mechanism, it will address the issue of fair dealing. Does he agree that the sooner we pass such a Bill, the sooner we can help not just pig farmers, but many other farmers and suppliers to supermarkets?

[Mr Bacon]

I agree. We all use supermarkets because in many ways they are efficient, but we love to hate them because they are very powerful. We are not discussing perfect competition. People sometimes speak of supermarkets as though they were speaking of the market for foreign exchange, but this is an oligopolistic arrangement. Supermarkets have large amounts of power that they do not always use in the right way, and sometimes they misuse that power. I welcome the Government’s proposals for an adjudicator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bacon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there is not a level playing field. BPEX has done a lot of work on the issue and estimates that 70% of the pork imported to this country is produced under animal welfare standards that would be illegal here. In other words, 30% of what comes in meets our standards, and 70% does not.

Price promotions in supermarkets are a particular problem. Tesco ran a price promotion in January in what are called the gondola ends—the ends of the aisles—and it was very successful because of its high visibility. Such promotions can increase sales by up to 200%. If a supermarket has an uplift of 200%, not only will it want to keep the promotion going for longer, but it will need more product. I fear that, at such times, even if supermarkets such as Tesco are adhering, or say that they are adhering, to the standards for their imports, suppliers will be under pressure and will get the product from wherever they can, and the standards will not always be adhered to.

People may be familiar with the concept of stalls and tethers, which are banned in this country. Tesco wrote to me this morning pointing out that they will be banned in the European Union, but they will not—an allowance will still be made for the use of stalls and tethers, although the period will be restricted. Even so, that will not be introduced until 2013, which means that if one visits a British farm and sees a stall and tether, one will know that it is illegal, whereas if one visits a farm in other parts of the EU, one will still be able to see stalls and tethers and will then have to audit whether they are used for more than four weeks. I really do not know how that can be successfully audited. There are still big issues to resolve.

I have no doubt that the behaviour of some supermarkets has helped to suck in imports, which has had the effect of keeping the lion’s share of the profits at the customer-facing end of the supply chain, and of ramming the rising production costs on to pig farmers.

[Andrew George]

It would be interesting to know whether the promotional campaign to which my hon. Friend referred was effectively being funded by the suppliers themselves. I am afraid that, too often, the so-called promotional campaigns of two for the price of one are largely or mostly funded by the suppliers, not the retailers.

[Mr Bacon]

Of course, that is a common problem with very powerful retailers. We have seen it in the book trade—many book publishers have been driven under by that sort of practice by some book chains. We know that big factors in the marketplace mean that it is constantly dynamic—no static position, even if it holds for a while, will hold for ever—but that is another thing that the adjudicator needs to look at, because it is an exercise of market power that distorts in a way that could sometimes be thought of as anti-competitive.

Retailers have the power, if they choose to use it, to make a difference by using their stocking, labelling and pricing policies to promote the prominence of British produce and to ensure a fair return for British farmers, including British pig farmers. I pay particular tribute to Morrisons, which is the only one of the big four supermarkets to source 100% of its fresh pork from Britain. Morrisons has also committed to using British-only meat in its own-label sausages, and earlier this month the company’s chairman, Sir Ian Gibson—I am led to believe that he is no relation of the former Member for Norwich North—wrote to me about Morrisons’ backing for British farmers. He said:

“We recognise the pressure pig producers are under and will continue to be strong supporters of the sector. We are the only major supermarket to have such close control over the provenance of its meat, buying pigs directly from Britain’s farmers and processing the pork ourselves”.

He continued:

“This results in exceptional quality, freshness and value. It also enables us to offer industry-leading support to British farming. Our commitment to source 100% British fresh pork is unique among the major supermarkets and in 2011 we expect to reach the milestone of purchasing a million pigs a year from British farmers”.

That is extremely good news. Sir Ian added:

“This policy is popular with customers who we know show a preference for British produce if the price is right. Our combination of British provenance and quality at an affordable price sees us overtrade on pork—that is to say, our share of the pork market exceeds our overall market share”.

I think there is a lesson there for other supermarkets. Sir Ian continued by saying that not only are Morrisons

“major customers of British farming but we consistently pay over the market price for our pigs and we always have done. This was reflected in the results of an independent satisfaction survey of our pork farmers last year, with over 70% responding that they were happy at the price paid by Morrison”.

I salute Morrisons for backing British farmers so wholeheartedly and I wish them every success in their million pig milestone.

It would be remiss to not also mention supermarkets such as Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op, which now all source 100% of the fresh pork that they stock from British pig farmers. All of that pork displays the red tractor mark, which is an independent logo that guarantees that the food it adorns was sourced from farms and food companies that meet Britain’s high standards of food safety and hygiene, animal welfare and environmental protection.

Such support, however, is not constant throughout the retail industry. On the day before the “Pigs are still worth it!” rally, Mr Andrew Opie, food director at the British Retail Consortium, commented in a press statement entitled “Pig farmers do have retailers’ support”:

“Retailers know some consumers prefer to buy British. They’re already doing what they need to to look after their supply chain and secure a sustainable UK pig industry”.

I am afraid that that will raise a hollow laugh from many pig farmers. Mr Opie goes on:

“Supermarkets do not generally pay farmers directly for their pork.”

Well, that will be news to Sir Ian Gibson, because that is exactly what Morrisons does. Mr Opie concludes by asserting that supermarkets have no direct relationship with farmers. Unsurprisingly, the BPEX chairman, Stewart Houston, described those comments as “complete rubbish”, before adding that supermarkets

“dictate prices to processors who pass those prices directly to producers. It is a very short supply chain and they have nowhere to hide. How much money there is in the supply chain is determined by the price supermarkets pay. It is as simple as that.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

Yes to all that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are at the forefront of measures to protect blue fin tuna. I thoroughly welcome the move by Princes and other processors to ensure that they use tuna from sustainable stocks, and we will continue to work with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that this continues.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am pleased with what I hope is significant progress in this policy area after many years of campaigning, but how can fish stocks be protected effectively if discards are taken into account, and how can we distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch in the management of stocks?

[Richard Benyon]

No doubt when a lot of those who signed the Fish Fight petition see the words “Discard ban imposed”, they will think, “Job done”, but unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman and his fishermen know, life is not that simple. Working with the fishing industry is the way to find solutions. For too long there has been too much stick and not enough carrot. We are proposing—we have benefited from this through policies such as the 50% project and catch quotas—that when we work with the industry we get much better results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

We expect to have a water White Paper in the summer.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to questions about the grocery adjudicator, I should declare an interest as chair of the Grocery Market Action Group, as well as because last week I met the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who confirmed that the draft Bill would be published after the purdah period in May. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that she will use every endeavour to work with the business managers of this place and the Business Department to ensure that the measure is introduced this year and that we have effective regulation of the sector as soon as possible?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that I will use all my best endeavours to ensure that we proceed swiftly. I pay tribute to his work on producing a Bill in this Parliament, which I hope will help to inform his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is anxious that we make good progress on the important Bill that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Water and Sewerage Charges (South West Water)

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sanders]

Indeed. I would rather like Regina Finn to spend perhaps a year in the south-west on average wages. If that were to happen, I think that we would see a change in Ofwat’s policy.

I also question the use of the retail prices index in setting price rises. Although Ofwat technically enforces price ceilings, it is de facto setting prices. We are moving to a system of uprating pensions and benefits by the consumer prices index. We should do that for water bills too, at least to make the price rise somewhat defensible.

On the wider issue, however, Ofwat has consistently failed to engage with the real problems highlighted in Anna Walker’s review. At the moment, Ofwat does not seem to be interested in finding a resolution to the south-west problem and so it cannot be seen to be standing up for south-west customers. When it comes to the protection of consumers’ interests in the south-west, Ofwat is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

In our discussions with Ofwat, its representatives have told us that solving this problem would be complicated and that we should focus on a social tariff instead, which is where Ofwat is investing its time and energy. Curiously enough, the official line is that Ofwat took that decision unilaterally. Parliamentary answers revealed that neither the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs nor the Treasury gave any instructions or guidance and that Ofwat has not even written down a plan of its work for reviewing Walker. All we have had is a vague indication from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who was the Minister with responsibility for water in the previous Government, that Ofwat should look into reviewing Walker.

The plot thickens, however. When I submitted a freedom of information request on this issue, it emerged that the Treasury briefed Ofwat on what it wanted Ofwat to achieve in its work, but as yet, exactly what that entails has not been disclosed. Perhaps I have been unfair to Ofwat in that the Government are the reason why it is useless at protecting South West Water customers. Maybe the Minister will reveal the truth.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

One of the reasons why Ofwat might not be particularly effective in protecting South West Water customers is that when water was privatised, a risk-free money-making system was effectively created. When somebody has a monopoly on services such as water and sewerage services, that is bound to happen. However, the problem in the south-west is that there is a national asset—the beaches—that has to be cleared up and cleaned up at great expense by a very small part of the population. The south-west has 30% of the national beaches, but only 3% of the national population. Of course, if we compare that with the National Gallery or the British Museum, which are funded from national taxation, we in the south-west have to protect a national asset on the basis of having only 3% of the population. That is simply unsustainable.

[Mr Sanders]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I made that same point in a Radio Cornwall interview not an hour ago. It is amazing that that station can be picked up so far away.

My main point is that the development of a solution is fundamentally undemocratic and beyond scrutiny. Deciding which combination of Walker’s recommendations to implement should be down to the political will of Ministers and the Government. It should be for them to take the courageous decision to put an end to this injustice or suffer the political consequences. The solution should not be watered down—excuse the pun—by quangos and officials who have no inherent interest in standing up for water customers, especially not those in the far south-west. Ofwat claims that a levy on other water company areas to bring down bills in the south-west, or to equalise bills across the country, would breach Treasury rules, and it is not keen to explore changing those rules, but the nationwide social tariff suffers from that very same problem, because it involves moving money around between water customers, outside the Government’s coffers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing this important debate and articulating so well the case for taking action, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on reinforcing his points.

My contribution will be relatively brief. I want to emphasise some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. The privatisation of the water industry 20 years ago effectively created a risk-free money extortion system, as I said earlier. The company knows full well what the circumstances are in the south-west. It can almost print its dividend the year before, because it knows how the market works: it is not competing with anyone else, and the only variables are uncertainties about its input costs during the year and the risk that it might not be able to recover payments from all its customers, which is increasingly occurring in areas such as mine. Incomes in Cornwall have been at the bottom of the earnings league table since records began, and South West Water’s prices are and have always been significantly higher than in the rest of the country. In those circumstances, people have great difficulty paying the water charges with which they are presented. The legacy of basing water charges on the archaic and unjust rating system, which is not used for any other purpose, re-emphasises that significant reform is needed.

The one beneficial outcome of the circumstances in which the system operates is that it encourages people to recognise the advantages of water metering. South West Water has not engaged in an evangelical campaign to encourage people to install a water meter in their homes or premises; people have simply recognised that they can at least attempt to control their bills by various means, and in many cases the most effective way is to install a water meter. If there is a silver lining in the cloud, it is that people have pursued that. I think that it is accepted across all parties that the increasing move towards universal metering is broadly desirable in public policy terms, and certainly in environmental terms, if we are to address the proper management of natural resources.

In my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, I drew parallels with other, similar national assets. Our beaches are a national asset, which people come to from all over the country all year round. It is not just a summer thing, as it used to be; in my constituency, kite surfers come down from London and from other parts of the country throughout the winter months to enjoy the beaches and the sea around our coast, and they do so with some confidence that they will not go away with a bug, due to the efforts of South West Water to clean up those beaches and ensure a significant reduction in the public health risks associated in the past with bathing in some waters in the south-west.

Those beaches are a national asset, like the British Museum, the National Gallery and the Olympic stadiums, which are being funded by everyone in the country. We do not ask London taxpayers alone to fund them.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because the heart of his argument is about fairness. Everything that we have heard to date has been about affordability. As crucial as that is, I would be concerned if any future review or consultation did not address fairness. The points that he is making are absolutely right.

[Andrew George]

I know that Ministers are wrestling to produce a fair and equitable solution, and I know that this Minister has been engaging constructively and is well seized of the problem and the challenges that we in the south-west face—I have no doubt that he understands the issue fully. Discussions with other Departments, especially the Treasury, will inevitably be involved. I hope that the issues can be resolved to the satisfaction of the long-suffering water rate payers of the south-west. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that any solution must emphasise fairness.

It is worth while, when considering the issue, to compare water with electricity, telecoms and other utilities. In any other part of the country, it is at least possible to opt for another supplier of services. Therefore, whichever part of the country someone happens to live in, they will know that a regulator is regulating the market to ensure that there is fair competition and an even playing field, so that anyone in the country has the opportunity to at least obtain services—in this case, we are talking about water and sewerage services—that are no worse and no better than anywhere else in the country. We pay a significant amount more.

[Alison Seabeck]

On the glamorous subject of sewage, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, apart from the current pressure on bill payers in the south-west, we will have additional pressure from the transfer across of the private sewer network? It seems to be a completely unknown quantity—South West Water does not really know what it is taking on and what the impact will be. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Minister to offer reassurance on that?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I do not know whether this is area in which she is declaring her interest.

[Alison Seabeck]

Not in sewage.

[Andrew George]

I am sure that her interest is in something far more glamorous than the adoption of private sewers. I have raised the matter with the Minister and there has been consultation on it. Water companies are aware of the issue and some have undertaken their own calculations of the impact that it might have. I am confused and uncertain about how far down the water companies will have to go—it is possible to get stuck on these issues due to the number of metaphors that could be adopted in relation to them, but I shall not dwell on that for too long—before they take on those obligations. Other issues include the state in which those sewers would have to be in order for them to be fit to be adopted and, indeed, whether the companies will have the opportunity to assess the condition of those drains and sewers in the first place.

The information that appears to be coming from the marketplace and from those who are engaged in the industry is that both the previous and present Governments have not properly assessed the true impact that the proposal is likely to have. The knock-on effect will be on all customers—not only in the south-west, but countrywide—although it will be disproportionately worse for those in the south-west, because any increase in their bills will be on top of something that is already extortionately high. I know that the Minister is looking into the issue. The matter clearly needs to be resolved before we go down the track of finally forcing water companies to adopt private sewers and drains. I hope that the Minister will address the issue in his comments.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) has left the Chamber, but she raised the issue of fairness. When we have debated how we can address the legacy of unfairness that has been left to South West Water customers, we have talked about the potential adoption of a national levy, which is one of the options proposed by the Anna Walker review. A national levy would be a very small, gnat bite of a charge, which few people would notice and which would address some of the inherited legacy of additional unfairness in the south-west and other parts of the country. However, if we adopted such a levy, and if it were simply a flat rate charge for all water rate payers, poor water rate payers in one part of the country—the north-east, for example—might end up subsidising wealthy second home owners, who already pay, if they have water meters, significantly less than most people in their locality. Clearly, to address the issue of fairness, if we were to adopt a national solution, it would have to be significantly more sophisticated than a simple, flat-rate solution. I know that the Minister is well aware of the issues.

[Mr Sanders]

It is worth putting on the record the amount that would be asked of each customer. It is in the Walker review. It is £1.50 per customer per year.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he has the figure to hand, but I do not. As I have said, it is an imperceptible gnat bite of 3p per week throughout the year. It is not a significant charge for people, and the potential benefits to this country’s water rate payers, such as those in the south-west, who are significantly disadvantaged, would be considerable.

Finally, I have emphasised the benefits to water rate payers if they, in most cases, adopt a water meter. Many of those living in houses in multiple occupation, sheltered housing and so on are not able to install a meter in their own individual property. When they query that and ask South West Water how, given the unfairness of the system—particularly if they are elderly, do not use a lot of water and live n their own—they might reduce their bills and the exorbitant charges that they have to endure, they are told that they have a range of alternative options, one of which is to return to South West Water, which is obliged to offer them an assessed charge, which assesses their notional water usage and charges them on the basis of what they would have been levied had they had a water meter.

In all such cases with which I have dealt over the years, those charges have usually reduced bills by half or more. My point to the Minister is that, rather than expecting water rate payers—particularly those living in sheltered accommodation who do not have assessed charges—to believe that there might be an alternative solution and to then be articulate and confident enough to approach the company to ask for one to reduce their charges, it should be the company’s default position to make those customers aware of the availability of an assessed charge. Many vulnerable people live on their own in sheltered accommodation without the benefit of reduced charges on water meters, but they could at least be given the opportunity of an assessed charge. That is what the company should be doing in the first place.

I have run South West Water down something rotten this afternoon, and to be fair, the chief executive, Christopher Loughlin, is fully engaged with these issues. When I raised the issue of assessed charges, he accepted that the company can be much more on the front foot and assured me that it wants to tackle the issue. He is conscious of the impact on his customers of issues such as the fairness of billing and the charges levied by South West Water, and he is fully behind the campaign by Members from all parties. The company is aware of these issues and would welcome any solution that, while not giving it any particular benefit, would reassure its customers that arrangements can be put in place that are more equitable than those they have had to endure for the past 20 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure finally to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing this debate. I have taken note of the attention that he has given these issues in parliamentary questions and, most recently, in early-day motions. I am well aware of the anger, frustration and even desperation that many of his constituents feel as a result of the long-standing problems with water and sewerage charges in his area.

As the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, MPs of all political persuasions across the south-west have focused a great deal on this issue. I have talked about it at length with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who are particularly exercised by the lack of progress on the Walker review—an issue to which I will return—and by the continued suffering of their constituents, particularly the poorest ones.

It would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the outstanding work of Linda Gilroy, who did a huge amount of work in ensuring that the previous Parliament was aware of and understood these issues, and any future progress will necessarily be down in part to the remarkable effort that she expended.

[Andrew George]

It is worth ensuring that that commendation for the work done by the former hon. Member, Linda Gilroy, has cross-party support. As a fellow officer of the all-party group on water, I know that her commitment and involvement took the campaign a great deal further than it would have gone otherwise. Her work certainly should be commended, and the Minister will no doubt recognise that, too.

[Mr Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. With his typical generosity, he demonstrates that a solution can be found on a cross-party basis.

As somebody who is closely associated with my own region, the north-west, I understand how Members of Parliament can form a regional identity and share concerns across party lines about issues that are of outstanding regional importance, as water is in the south-west. I also understand how politicians from other regions who pontificate about regional issues, where those almost certainly require national solutions, can quickly arouse suspicions among MPs from the region in question. As a Member of Parliament from Cumbria, which is surrounded by the Irish sea and the Cumbrian fells, which is partly within the Lake district, which is sparsely populated, where tourism is incredibly important and where water and sewerage bills have risen exponentially since 1989 to become the highest outside the south-west, I understand.

The average annual bill for water and sewerage services in the south-west has risen by 72.2% between 1989 and 2010-11—the highest increase in the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View stated in her Adjournment debate last year:

“The problem we face is simple: water rates in the south-west are 25% higher than the UK average, placing an unfair burden on…my constituents and all residents across the south-west of England.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 710.]

The average bill for South West Water customers is significantly higher for 2010-11 than elsewhere in the country, at £486, as opposed to a national average of £339, as I think has been mentioned. In addition, unmetered customers also face much higher bills, with an average of £721 for South West Water consumers, as opposed to a national average of £394.

As has been roundly discussed, that does not happen by accident. The widely condemned Thatcher privatisation of the water industry in the 1980s led directly to many of the problems that we face today, but the south-west’s significant demographic and economic characteristics reinforce the problems associated with high bills. They must be understood in an integrated way. They cannot be considered in isolation. As has been touched on, 22% of South West Water customers are pensioners, although being a pensioner should not be used as a blanket term to denote people living in financial hardship; many hon. Members would share that view. In addition, I think that it has been proved that lone parents have more affordability problems than single pensioners. The percentage of lone parents in the south-west is at the national average.

An extremely high proportion of the population live in sparsely populated rural areas—something that I am familiar with. That makes service provision more expensive and diminishes economies of scale. The policy solutions should address the problems that are faced today. The fact that housing affordability issues are the most acute in the UK outside London should be considered. As has been alluded to, the region is the UK’s top tourist destination. The population rises more than by 25% in peak tourist weeks, with the result that the demand for water is a third higher than for the year as a whole.

I understand that South West Water understands those issues, and it should be commended, as it has been, in part, by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, for investing more that £1.5 billion in the clean sweep programme, which has done so much to transform sewage treatment and the natural environment. However, bills for consumers in the south-west are now 25% higher than those in the rest of the country, and for the most vulnerable in the south-west community—those struggling alone on a pension, lone parents trying to raise their families and single people living in rented accommodation—water bills present a struggle. It has been estimated that their bills can take 10% of their incomes. Surely, that cannot be acceptable. I pay tribute to the Consumer Council for Water for the work that it has done and continues to do in trying to influence prices for consumers not only in the south-west but throughout the country.

We can talk at some other stage—I have no doubt that we will—about the current economic situation, its causes and its potential remedies, but it is certain that the people in our society who will feel the effects of the recession the most, and who will without doubt feel the brunt of the Government’s cuts the most, will be those who already suffer the most from rising water charges, by comparison with other consumers. It cannot be right for up to 10% of their incomes to go on purchasing what is a basic entitlement—a right—while food and fuel costs are rising, the Government have raised VAT to 20%, unemployment is rising and job insecurity is everywhere. Action must be taken sooner rather than later.

The issues associated with water and sewerage charging in the south-west are difficult. The hon. Member for Torbay called them intractable. The Minister knows that they are difficult and has said as much in this place and to the Select Committee on a number of occasions. He understands the difficulties of the decisions and recognises the difficulty for many people who face such water charges. I believe that the Minister wants to do the right thing, but wanting to do the right thing and doing it are very far away from each other. Intentions count for little. The difference between intention and action is the same as the difference between night and day. It is difficult for DEFRA Ministers, as the Secretary of State hovers around the exit door to get things done, and the Department risks becoming inert, like many others in Whitehall, as sackings loom and the near 30% departmental cut begins to bite, but a lot of the heavy work on this issue has already been done, in the form of the Walker and Cave reviews.

The Government announced in August 2010 that they would review the regulation of the water industry to assess whether the current framework, including Ofwat’s statutory duties, remained fit for purpose. Does the Minister believe that Ofwat is fit for purpose, and if not, why not? The industry review is also meant to assess how well Ofwat translates guidance from the Government and its statutory duties into its decision making. With that in mind, did the Government give any advice to Ofwat with regard to water pricing in the south-west before Ofwat set the price for the region for this financial year? Did the Government give any guidance to Ofwat about the problems being faced by south-west customers before the latest price rise was announced? Inflation is currently 4.7%, yet Ofwat’s allowed increase for South West Water customers averages at 5.1%. Have the Government discussed that with Ofwat at any stage, before or after the announcement, and is the Minister happy with that level?

I understand that the water review will directly inform the Government’s White Paper, to be published in June. Will the Minister confirm that the White Paper will be published no later than June? He will understand that it needs the fullest parliamentary scrutiny if it is to command broad support. The fundamental question is whether, almost a year after taking office, the Minister can explain what is halting the implementation of the Walker review. It was a superb piece of work that commanded support from hon. Members on both sides of the House and that held within it, as has been mentioned, many potential remedies to the problems of the south-west and South West Water consumers.

Will the Minister today give hon. Members a categorical assurance of a commitment in principle by the Government to implementation of the Walker findings and to a timetable for implementation? That is not much to ask. Further, will he confirm that the reduced capacity of DEFRA has in no way affected the implementation of the Walker recommendations? Will he also address fears that the Government’s review and the production of its White Paper have prohibited the implementation of Walker thus far? There are fears, which so far are justifiable, that the Government are backtracking on Walker. In the words of the American gospel hymn, “How long, O Lord, how long?”

Finally, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has defined water poverty as beginning when a household’s water bill equates to more that 3% of its income after tax. As we have heard, in the south-west, some households pay in the region of 10% of their income on water bills. Does the Minister know what percentage of people living in the south-west live in water poverty? Will he undertake to publish an assessment of how many people are living in water poverty by region and by constituency, and ensure that his White Paper will contain measures with which to eradicate water poverty? I believe that there is much common ground on which we can build.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andrew George]

On the various alternatives, I know that each one is not easy, as the Minister has made clear. He is clearly very seized of the challenges of coming to an equitable solution. Does he not agree with me that in having a solution that is simply within the company itself—a social tariff within the company boundaries—there would be inevitable unfairness, wherever the line was drawn? People on moderate incomes, who would have difficulty paying the bill, would be subsidising other people in the same company area, when they are already suffering from very high water bills.

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said, which is why I am sure that in the south-west it would be more popular for us to use the national average, which is one of the suggestions that we will be taking forward.

We have started to prepare our guidance on company social tariffs under section 44 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which will enable companies to introduce social tariffs within their own areas to help households that would otherwise struggle to pay their bills in full. We hope to issue our guidance in the autumn, so that companies can consider it ahead of the 2012-13 financial year. Indeed, this afternoon the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is hosting a discussion with water companies and others to exchange views on what the guidance needs to cover. South West Water is participating in that discussion. I understand that it is very keen on the possibility of bringing forward a company social tariff. It has indicated to me that changes to how it levies sewerage charges could potentially raise about £7.5 million per annum to fund a company social tariff without adding a penny to household bills. That would potentially reduce the bills of 100,000 households in the south-west by about £75 per annum. I strongly encourage the company to look favourably at that possibility.

The hon. Member for Copeland asked when we are going to implement the Walker review. The Walker review identified a number of options. Implementing the review would involve implementing all those options, some of which were more-or-less dismissed by Anna Walker herself. She did, however, identify a number of options that would help to address the problems associated with high water bills in the south-west, in addition to proposed changes to WaterSure. Ofwat has been exploring those options, and we are currently considering the information that it has provided. Some options could potentially benefit all households in the south-west, and not just those on low incomes, which should address some of the comments that have been made today. Options include a one-off, or annual, adjustment funded by the Government, an annual adjustment funded by water customers nationally, a range of tariff options, rebalancing charges and the sale of surplus water. Decisions will be taken imminently, and we will set out our proposals for the south-west in our Walker consultation.

I recently received Ofwat’s final recommendations. I can address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Copeland and others by saying that we will be taking those forward very soon. I should also mention some of the initiatives that South West Water is taking. Since 2007, its WaterCare scheme has helped households in debt by offering them a benefit and a water tariff check including, if appropriate, a meter. Metered customers also receive a free home water audit and simple low-tech water-saving devices. I have seen those schemes in operation, and they are successful in reducing the amount of water that households use, with minimal impact on their lives. In fact, in some cases there is an improvement, and I applaud any roll-out of such schemes.

South West Water recently announced that it is enhancing its current WaterCare scheme to WaterCare Plus. That will include home energy audits and advice on claiming grants. In addition, in the coming year, it is investing £1 million in its FreshStart programme to offer advice to customers with general debt problems. Both the WaterCare Plus and FreshStart schemes are fully funded by South West Water and do not impact on customer bills. The company will also be making free water-saving packs available to its customers, and it will be promoting them through the local media this month and next. I very much welcome and support those initiatives.

Metering offers an opportunity for some households to save money. Ofwat estimates that three in 10 single pensioners, working-age adults who live alone and, to a lesser degree, pensioner couples in the south-west are currently unmetered and could expect to see their bills go down, if they were metered. South West Water has already undertaken two advertising campaigns—in Plymouth, and in Exeter and Torbay—aimed at encouraging low-income unmetered households to look at whether a meter can reduce their bills. I believe that more can be done to build on that. For example, all unmetered households can investigate whether a meter can save them money by using the Consumer Council for Water’s water meter calculator, which is available at the Consumer Council for Water’s website.

May I reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who secured the debate, and to other hon. Members for whom the issue is of great concern to them and their constituents, that the Government are very aware of the problem of high water charges in the south-west? Support is already available to help the vulnerable and low-income households with their bills. We will build on that, and our Walker consultation will point the way forward. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me for just a little while longer. I will, of course, be happy to meet any hon. Members with constituencies in the south-west to discuss this and to ensure that they have the understanding that they need to communicate our consultation, when we bring it out. I again commend my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay for bringing this matter to the Chamber today.

Forestry (England)

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

As I am sure you, Mr Speaker, and the House are aware, I volunteered to make an oral statement, and an oral statement does not appear on the Order Paper.

I made the decision with the Prime Minister. We have spoken about the matter, as the hon. Lady would expect, on a number of occasions. We spoke face to face about the options open to us, and we made the decision together.

The hon. Lady talks about the savings that I have had to make in my Department without a trace of acknowledgement that the reason Government Departments are having to make savings is the mess that her Government left this country in. I do not accept her argument that the proposals outlined in the consultation would have impacted adversely on the stewardship of our woodlands and forests. Since we are on the subject of stewardship, I remind her that, notwithstanding the savings that we have had to make in our Department, we have protected the expenditure on stewardship, precisely because we know that it is so important.

The many friends of forests that the hon. Lady listed will in many cases have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their concern about their understanding of the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill. In their minds, those clauses gave rise to a concern that their particular dearly loved forest might in some way be under threat. It is clear from my statement that, with the withdrawal of the forestry clauses, there can be no question about the protection of their forests in future.

The hon. Lady asked me about the planned sales. They have been suspended, and we await the outcome from the panel. She asked how many responses we had received. The Forestry Commission has received approximately 7,000 direct responses and 2,500 e-mails, and it has sent out 400 hard copies of the consultation document.

With regard to the composition of the panel, it will represent the broad range of views of all those who share with all of us a love and cherishing of the forests, and want to see them protected. It will be broad. Let me help the hon. Lady with her understanding of the deregulation taskforce, which fulfils a completely different function from that of the panel. We have invited Mr Richard Macdonald to advise Ministers on the simplification of regulation, particularly the regulation of agriculture. The consultation is complete: we have received the responses and we await Mr Macdonald’s report. As I said, this is a completely different function from that of the panel that I have announced today.

I found it quite hard to take the hon. Lady’s comments about the support that the previous Labour Government had given to the countryside—and the reaction of Members to those comments was enough to reinforce that point. Finally, as regards humility—perhaps, ultimately, that is the difference between her and me. I am prepared to come here and show genuine humility. If we heard some acknowledgement from the hon. Lady that her Government sold off forests with inadequate protection, we might begin to take what she had to say more seriously.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is, of course, right in the reassurances that she gave about the Public Bodies Bill, and I certainly welcome the statement she made last week about the 40,000 hectares, as previously announced in the comprehensive spending review. Will she reassure us that the well-constructed questions posed in the consultation will not simply be lost, or submerged by what has been announced today?

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can give that assurance. Those were perfectly reasonable questions to ask, and I would expect members of the independent panel to look at all the questions raised in the consultation document—and, indeed, at some additional wider questions that members of the public asked to be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not accept that it puts biodiversity at risk. That is something that I am particularly committed to enhancing and improving, as is set out in the proposals. The hon. Lady’s point will remind everybody that the public forest estate covers only 18% of woodland. Under the reforms that we propose, the Forestry Commission would continue in a regulatory role, and I would expect it to help us to achieve even higher standards of maintenance in both the public and the private forest.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Bearing in mind the Secretary of State’s concerns about public perception of the consultation proposals, does she agree that now may be the time to provide greater clarity about the conditions governing how the 40,000 hectares announced in the comprehensive spending review will be disposed of?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am happy to provide clarity. The criteria for the continuing sales of land as part of the CSR planned release are published and in the public domain on the Forestry Commission website. They look principally for sites that are less accessible and have a large requirement for expenditure. The criteria are set out in the public domain, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can help to point people to the right place.