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.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, because we live in an age of transparency and that is what community groups have every right to expect.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the point about a consultation, would my right hon. Friend care to reassure the House that the Public Bodies Bill seeks to establish enabling powers, rather than duties, and that that will fundamentally enshrine the opportunities proposed in the consultation, not force things through?

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is important to note that when we published the consultation document on 27 January it was accompanied by a written ministerial statement. If Members would like to read it in conjunction with the consultation document, they will find an assurance on this point. We will introduce a general duty for Ministers

“to have regard to the maintenance of public benefits when exercising”

the forestry-related powers and the powers in the Public Bodies Bill. [Interruption.] I am sure that Labour Members would be interested to know what those additional powers of protection are, as they have been making a lot of noise about this.

Secondly, the statement mentions

“exempting the most iconic heritage forests from the full range of options so that”

they

“could only be transferred to a charitable organisation or remain in public ownership”. —[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 17WS.]

That is far more protection than currently exists. If the Labour party would stop holding up the business in the other place, we might get those amendments on the statute book.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read a document—“Operational Efficiency Programme: Asset Portfolio”, which was published by the previous Government just months before the election—and discovered, on page 54, an explicit reference to the case for the “long-term lease” of the public forestry estate. What about this document—the “Operational Efficiency Programme: final report”? It states clearly that “greater commercial benefit” could be obtained from the public forest estate. And what about this document—“A Strategy for England’s Trees, Woods and Forests”—published by none other than the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) when he was the Environment Secretary? It makes the case for local communities actively participating in the ownership and management of the public forest estate. Does that not lay completely bare the hypocrisy of the position now being taken by the Opposition? Their synthetic outrage cannot disguise the fact that they already had the public forest estate well and truly in their sights, so let us have no more of this self-righteous indignation.

Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Caton]

That is a fair point. It is useful that the president of the British Beekeepers’ Association issued a statement just a couple of days ago. Traditionally, that organisation has not been at the forefront of trying to get action taken, but it is now realising how serious the situation is and it is calling for an urgent review. We are all beginning to sing from the same hymn sheet.

The Government asked the chemicals regulation directorate to look at the Buglife report. In a letter to Buglife and the Soil Association, Lord Henley said that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides had conducted a further review. However, earlier this month, someone contacted the ACP to ask for a copy of the report and she was told that the ACP had not conducted a review of the Buglife report and that only the CRD had conducted the review. That same person then asked the CRD for a copy of the review and she was told that it was not quite finished, as the directorate still needed to look at some data.

Even though the review was clearly not completed, Lord Henley felt able to tell Buglife that its report had highlighted a need in the risk assessment process for data on the impact of these pesticides on over-wintering bees and that the matter was being addressed. That was clearly a welcome step. However, he did not respond to the main thrust of that report on environmental damage, nor did he answer the main recommendations that I have just outlined. Buglife and the Soil Association have asked the Minister to supply a copy of the full report from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, but that could be difficult because the report simply does not exist.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting case. Given that the problems of colony collapse and bee decline did not happen at the last general election and that the previous Government agreed welcome investment that went into research into the causes of colony collapse, has his research identified any evidence provided by DEFRA through the work that it has undertaken in examining the causes of colony collapse in the UK?

[Martin Caton]

Most of the research that I have looked at for this debate has been new research done by academic institutions that leads to further worries about the use of this particular group of systemics. I will come on to that in a moment.

Without a completed review of the report, DEFRA decided not to accept Buglife’s interpretation of the current science and continues to maintain that

“We have a robust system for assessing risks from pesticides in the UK”

that is based on evidence. DEFRA goes on to state:

“current evidence shows that…there is not an unacceptable risk to bee health”

from these products. That statement was made as recently as last month. But how robust is a risk assessment regime that takes 16 months to deal with a report? That worries me because things have moved on considerably since the production of the Buglife report. Further scientific evidence has been produced over the past 15 months that strengthens the case. Four significant pieces of published research have emerged during that time. The first is a paper in Ecotoxicology by Nils Dittbrenner. It demonstrates a damaging impact on earthworm growth and activity at field level use of Imidacloprid. Secondly, work by the toxicologist, Dr Henk Tennekes, shows that low-level exposure to neonicotinoids by arthropods over a long time is likely to be as damaging as high exposure over a short time and hence more harmful than had been thought. Thirdly, work done by James Cresswell of Exeter university published in Ecotoxicology makes the case, from various pieces of lab work done by others, that a 6% to 20% reduction in honey bee performance is associated with the use of neonicotinoids. However, none of the field studies used to assess the impact of systemic pesticides would be able to detect a change in performance at that level.

Fourthly, a paper by Cedric Alaux of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research published in Environmental Microbiology demonstrates a clear link between neonicotinoid exposure and increased susceptibility to fatal nosema infections that could threaten pollinators. In addition, there is unpublished work that adds to the picture. One piece of work from the Netherlands shows widespread contamination of water bodies in that country and raises concerns about the impacts on the health of freshwater invertebrate populations. The other, from the USA, was the subject of the lead story in The Independent last Thursday under the headline, “Poisoned Spring”.

In an exclusive, Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of The Independent, revealed work from the US Department of Agriculture’s bee research lab, showing that neonicotinoid pesticides make honey bees far more susceptible to disease—even at tiny doses. Therefore, they have to be in the frame when we consider the causes of the colony collapse disorder that is having a devastating effect on bees around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

Yes, I entirely share the view that these penalties are out of all proportion. I have raised this with the Commission and, more importantly, I and many other Ministers of Agriculture have raised it in the context of the review of the common agricultural policy, which has just commenced. We have firmly expressed to the Commission our view that the next system of CAP support must be simpler, both for individual farmers and for member states to implement.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Having met Richard Macdonald, I am confident that he will undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of the regulatory burden on farmers. When he reports, will my hon. Friend ensure that he receives support from other Government Departments and that that these matters are discussed, if necessary, with the European Union as well?

[Mr Paice]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I am in close contact with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), and, as I said in answer to an earlier question, with the relevant Commissioners across Europe. We are determined that if this industry is to flourish and succeed in the face of increasing world demand for food over the next decades, it must be freed up from unnecessary burdens of regulation.

Fisheries

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I have to declare a special interest because my husband is the owner and skipper of an under-10-metre commercial trawler operating out of the port of Looe in my constituency.

I have seen the difficulties facing the industry over a number of years. People seem to forget that each commercial fishing vessel represents a small business. I pay tribute to the work of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, and my heart goes out to those fishermen who have lost their lives trying to put the fry on our plate.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate, but I, too, am disappointed that it did not feel that it could take place in the main Chamber, as it has in the past. I hope that time will be found during 2011 to allow a full debate on the Floor of the House on the review of the CFP in 2012. That is important to the fishing industry, the marine environment and fish stocks.

I praise the Minister for showing great determination in setting out his case for root-and-branch reform of the present destructive common fisheries policy. Perhaps he will tell us about the support that he has secured from other member states that share his view. He may also be able to tell us about the member states that have indicated that they want a simple review of Council Regulation No. 2371/2002 and a continuation of article 17, which contains the disastrous principle of equal access to a common resource.

At each Council, the EU TAC for each precious stock is decided. Fishermen from my constituency work from, and are supported by businesses in, Looe, Polperro and the Rame peninsula. They fish in ICES—International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—area VIIe, and the species they catch include area VII lemon sole, squid and cuttlefish, which are non-precious stocks. However, the Commission has proposed a 15% reduction in cod, pollack and anglerfish, which is often known as monkfish, in the area, and fishermen there rely on those stocks.

The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation has written that the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Irish Sea Fisheries Board have indicated that there are signals in their official surveys of good recruitment of cod. That seems to corroborate the observations of fishermen, who are reporting a high abundance of cod in the 30 to 40 cm range. There is a strong scientific argument for saying that this stock should fit into Commission policy statement category 8, with an increase in TAC of up to 15% and no increase in effort. I urge the Minister to speak to his counterparts from France, Belgium and Ireland and to make representations to the Commission to introduce an increase, as opposed to the proposed reduction.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point about cod around the coast of Cornwall, may I confirm from my conversations with fishermen from my constituency in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly that there is an abundance of cod? In recent weeks, many of those who have targeted other fisheries have found that three out of every four fish are cod of the recruitment class that the hon. Lady described. I strongly endorse the message that she has articulated, and I hope that the Minister will make sure that it is strongly communicated in the negotiations.

[Sheryll Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for that support.

Pollack is very important to fishermen using static nets. There is no ICES advice on pollack, yet the Commission has proposed cutting the TAC to average recent catch levels. That approach could have unintended effects on relative stability and increase discards in individual member states, thus prejudicing fisheries-dependent scientific data.

If we reduce a TAC when there is an abundance of fish, fishermen will end up discarding fish they cannot land. Many species suffer what could be described as the bends when discarded, and they die. A parliamentary answer from the former Minister responsible for fisheries on 21 October 2008 confirmed that statistics at the time showed that 117 million of the estimated 186 million fish caught in area VII were discarded, and many may not have survived.

There is a real argument for requiring all marketable fish to be landed. Over-quota fish could be sold on the market, fishermen could be compensated for their expenses and the remaining proceeds could be invested in developing environmentally friendly fishing gear and good fisheries science. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister has sought agreement from the European Commission to run pilot schemes to identify whether such an approach would work.

The argument that too many fishermen are chasing too few fish has been used for the past 30 years. I accept that we cannot allow the fleet to continue to fish unregulated, but it does not always follow that setting a low TAC will rectify the situation. Under past regulations, quotas have been reduced year on year, with many now less than 50% of levels in 1999. According to UK sea fisheries statistics, the number of English fishermen has fallen from 7,166 to 5,358 since then, while the number of vessels fell from 7,818 in 2000 to 6,500 in 2009. A decade later, however, we hear calls for further reductions in fleet size and fishing activity.

On the UK quota management regime, I fully acknowledge that the Minister has inherited a difficult situation, particularly in relation to the under-10-metre fleet. Will he confirm that the quota management rules published on the Department’s website have a legitimate standing in the UK? Had his predecessor used rule 19 to rectify the underestimate of the catch by fishermen in the under-10-metre sector in area IV, we may not have seen their quota expire earlier this year and the mackerel hand-line quota swapped to obtain fish to keep those fishermen working. That led to a critical situation regarding the hand-line mackerel quota a few weeks ago, and additional quota had to be obtained for that species. I would be interested to hear from the Minister from which source the additional 50 tonnes of mackerel were secured.

Finally, let me mention the recently approved special areas of conservation and the ongoing consultation on the four marine protected zone pilot projects. Despite a budget of £4,116,685 for consultations on those four projects, fishermen are still sceptical and suspicious. I fully accept that the designation may not result in any restrictions on fishing activity in those zones, but will the Minister confirm that he will take account of the fact that they contain sites for the disposal of dredged material permitted under Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 licences issued by his Department? If any restriction on fishing activity is considered in any of those zones, I ask that it take place only after we have ensured that an end to the further use of those dump sites is guaranteed.

My hon. Friend has inherited a difficult task, and I applaud his determination to secure a future for our marine environment and our fishing industry. Although fisheries may not be regarded as a large employer nationally, many coastal communities rely on the industry. I wish my hon. Friend well in the negotiations over the coming weeks and I thank him for the support that he has already shown the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I should not need to congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on having made the case for securing this important debate because, as has been said, we should, by rights, have had this debate in the main Chamber.

At this stage, I need to apologise, Mr Owen—I apologised to the Minister in advance—and explain that the timing of the debate, which is taking place on a Thursday afternoon, is particularly challenging for many MPs from far-flung constituencies, where fishing primarily takes place, and that because of the transport problems that I shall encounter in getting to the far west of Cornwall this evening, I may have to leave just before the debate concludes. In view of that, I will do my utmost to keep my remarks brief.

On top of the excellent points made by my honourable colleague the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) about issues affecting our region, I want to make a number of other points. The Minister is aware of them because I sent him a note to give him notice. First, I simply want to embellish and emphasise my honourable colleague’s point about the swapping of the mackerel hand-line quota during the autumn of this year. This is one of the most productive times of the year for mackerel hand-liners.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the mackerel hand-liners pursue a very ecologically friendly fishery, and for them to lose the quota when they are fishing in such a sustainable way was doubly disastrous?

[Andrew George]

Absolutely. My honourable colleague has anticipated the point that I was due to make, which is that that is a very sustainable fishery. Over the years, previous Ministers will have been aware of the work of mackerel hand-liners and those who support their work. It is also a Marine Stewardship Council-certified fishery. Given that, it is acknowledged that it should be taken out of the quota system altogether. I hope that there will be opportunities for the Minister to explore that in the negotiations in which he gets involved. We are talking about people who are engaged in the use of a line rather than a net. It is a selective fishery. It does not involve tremendous power, but just the brawn, generally, of the men—and women occasionally—who are engaged in it to haul their catch aboard. It is a very primitively based fishery.

[Richard Benyon]

May I respond to that point and to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on hand-line mackerel in the south-west? That is an under-exploited fishery and was considered good currency for swaps in the past. I concede that it was over-extended this year in terms of use of that currency. However, I can assure my hon. Friends that we will look very carefully at and work very closely with hand-line mackerel fishermen in future years to ensure that we know precisely what they think they will need and what is available as a currency swap. We will try to get it done better next year.

[Andrew George]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that intervention and much reassured. He replied to me on 17 November about the issues that I raised on behalf of the industry in Cornwall. I understand that what was undertaken was not done at his discretion, but was undertaken by the Marine Management Organisation, perhaps on his behalf. The point that I think he fully understands now is that it was undertaken without any consultation or negotiation with the mackerel hand-liners themselves. There was no effort at all to engage with them before the decision was taken to reduce their quota—to swap their quota—which put them in a parlous position. That is clearly absurd, given that it is the very type of fishery that we should be trying to encourage, not discourage.

My next point—again, I have given the Minister a note on it—is about protecting the engineless, under-10-metre fleet from having to face the regulations that other fisheries face. We have a very low-impact fishery in the Fal estuary—the Fal oyster fishery—which my honourable colleague the Member for South East Cornwall is well aware of. That is a sailboat-based fishery; no engined boats are engaged in the oyster fishery in the Fal. It is a Truro-based fishery. Travel difficulties have meant that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is unable to be here, but had she been here, she would have been arguing this case as well. I know that the European Commission will be reviewing the exemptions that have been granted to that fishery and potentially others.

The Minister will be aware of another fishery that is in my constituency—the traditional St Ives Jumbo fishery. Those traditional boats, which have been rebuilt in recent years and are extremely popular in St Ives bay, are a potential source of income. They, too, are engineless, 7-metre vessels, which have a very low impact on their environment. I hope that the Minister will consider very carefully the case that people will be making in that respect.

The Minister will also be aware that excellent work has been going on in the south-west, including Cornwall, with the Finding Sanctuary initiative. The purpose of that is to bring together stakeholders—fishermen and other industries, as well as environmentalists and scientists—to help to identify the potential for candidate marine conservation zones, which will be registered under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. However, a great deal of concern has been expressed to me by stakeholders that there has been insufficient instruction, advice and guidance to those engaged in the stakeholder consultation, in that all the industries that will be affected by the proposed candidate marine conservation zones are in effect adding a number of assumptions whenever they agree to those potential candidate zones. They are being led along the garden path to saying, “Yes, we agree with this, on the assumption that we can carry on doing x, y or z,” whether that be aggregate dredging, towing gear in a particular area in the fishing industry or, in the recreational boating or yachting community, anchoring in a particular area in certain conditions.

Of course, all those assumptions are being accepted and recorded in the process, but there has been insufficient instruction from the Department to guide people in that process. I suspect that confidence in the registration of the marine conservation zones—and indeed the MPAs—will be significantly undermined if and when, further down the track, it becomes clear to stakeholders engaged in the process that not all the assumptions that they have had recorded in the process can be granted when the marine conservation zones are finally designated.

The Minister and I debated this issue during the Committee that considered the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. It was always my concern that stakeholders should be entitled to have a significant say on the management of the zones, as well as on the designation of them. Their designation is important, but it is important to recognise that their management is as well.

I wish to make two broad points on the negotiations that the Minister will go to in a couple of weeks—the December Council. One is on the issue that my honourable colleague the Member for South East Cornwall raised about cod. The overarching point is about the basis of the science from which the proposals for the recommended TACs come. In the case of cod, there has been the tremendous success of the initiative—which was actually industry-led—to close the Trevose grounds off the north coast of Cornwall during the early months of each year, which has been happening for more than four years. We believe—although there is insufficient science to be able to put two and two together, as it were, and to draw conclusions—that, as a result that, there appears to be very significant recruitment of cod around the coast.

The enormous abundance of cod is astonishing, especially for the inshore fleet in our area, and entirely echoes the point that my honourable colleague the Member for South East Cornwall made. For example, my constituent, Chris Bean, who has the Lady Hamilton, which is well known in our area, has had scientists from CEFAS aboard his boat for the past three weeks. They have witnessed the same things that he has; in spite of the fact that he is not targeting cod, three out of every four fish that he catches are cod—landable and of a good size. However, he cannot land them because the quota for cod is absolutely minuscule. As my honourable colleague knows, the British fleet has a tiny fraction of the available quota in area VII, because the other nations seem to take the lion’s share—especially the French.

[Sheryll Murray]

Under the relative stability allocation, we secured 8% of the total EU TAC for cod in area VIIe. I endorse what my honourable colleague has said, and I would like to make him aware that things are even worse in area VIIe because of our very small starting point.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my honourable colleague for that intervention. It emphasises the point, although I do not think that the negotiations at the December Council will be an opportunity to reopen the issue of relative stability. I do not wish to cause earthquakes in Scotland as a result of suggesting that we do that now.

The issue goes back to the ‘70s and the basis on which, and how, we entered the European Union. That and the basis of our involvement in the common fisheries policy left us with a legacy that has created a complete absurdity. We are not saving any cod. Cod, due to their nature, are bottom fish. They suffer from the bends, so when they are thrown back they are dead. There is no question about that, and not a single life is saved as a result.

The Minister will have received representations from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. This is repeating the point that I have made to Ministers in the past on spurdog and porbeagle: zero quotas on both of those do not save a single porbeagle or spurdog. What we need is recognition that it is good for science, as well as for the industry, at least to record what is being caught, even if we do not realise the market value of the fish. I will not go into the detail of what is proposed by the CFPO on spurdog and porbeagle, but I think that it certainly has a good case on landing and recording every porbeagle over 2 metres, and that equally applies to every spurdog over 1 metre.

We need to have a further debate in future; I hope in Government time in the new year. The common fisheries policy has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and it clearly underpins everything that we are discussing today. Given that we need to look at the future of the CFP post-2012, I hope that the Minister will agree to a debate. Members who have been able to get here today and those who could not get here to engage in this debate would like, as early as possible in the new year, to debate this on a cross-party basis. These debates are often consensual, as we have found today, and we could establish a British view on the future of the CFP: a view that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned earlier, would be heavily based on a decentralised model—much more decentralised than now—with genuine management powers available to regional management committees.

The absurdity of using the blunt instrument of the quota regime has been highlighted by many Members. Quotas may be needed because it is not possible to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch, and I am sure any regime would need an indicative quota of some sort, but it is vital that we look at other measures. [Interruption.] I am just about to finish but I am happy to give way.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and absolutely endorse what he has just said. Does he think that in addition to a more decentralised approach within the CFP, we should also have a much more forceful distinction in our policy response between the interests of smaller-scale, more traditional fishing communities and operations and the large factory fishing units? The interests of such units are not always aligned with those of conservationists and general mainland consumers, whereas the interests of the smaller fishing communities, as we have heard, are absolutely necessarily aligned with the interests of everyone else in the country. A clear and much more forceful policy distinction would reap great rewards.

[Andrew George]

I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. We have not debated, and do not have time to debate today, industrial fishing and fishing for animal feed, or the comparison between industrial scale fishing and the more artisanal approach, which I have also highlighted. I wish that we had an opportunity to debate the future of the CFP.

It was a pleasure for me to go along to support the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on the Backbench Business Committee on 15 November in arguing that we should have at least this opportunity for debate. I am sorry that having said that I would be brief, I have taken a number of interventions and spoken for longer than I intended. I strongly endorse all the comments that other Members have made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions are taking place in Europe about the threshold for the import of GM soya, predominantly, which is what he is talking about, and I can assure him that we will be taking a constructive view to those negotiations. Quite clearly it would be pointless to deprive our livestock sector of something in a way that simply means we import more livestock products that have been fed on GM food.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Farmers clearly cannot be competitive if supermarkets have got them in an arm lock. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), the Minister rightly supported the Government policy of enforcing the grocery code supply practice. However, will he acknowledge that there is anxiety in the farming community about the fact that the Government may not be introducing this legislation soon enough. Can he reassure us that they will take the earliest opportunity to bring it forward?

[Mr Paice]

May I recognise and pay tribute to the sterling work that my hon. Friend has done on this matter over a number of years in bringing forward this proposition, which is now Government policy? I can reassure him that I am constantly talking to my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and urging them to bring this forward, because I fully recognise its importance to the whole of the agriculture industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

It is precisely because that was the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which his Government disregarded.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), does my hon. Friend agree that, for those people concerned about the issue of beak trimming, the worst possible outcome from an animal welfare point of view would be that we end up with legislation that resulted in exporting animal welfare concerns—and jobs—to other countries? That would surely be a far worse outcome.

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The sad reality is that chickens will feather-peck and adopt cannibalism in any circumstances, including in large free-range facilities. The challenge with which we have to wrestle is whether or not debeaking is a bigger or lesser welfare issue than the consequences of not debeaking. The Government want to see an end to debeaking and we will achieve that, but we have to ensure that we do not make the situation worse in the process.