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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I welcome her to this question session. She is absolutely right and, as part of our overall review of all arm’s length bodies, we are looking for the sorts of efficiencies to which she has referred. However, I can tell her that the AHA has already instituted a road map for change that should deliver a significant tranche of savings, and a much more efficient business as well.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

16. What plans she has for the future of the Rural Payments Agency.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

An independent review of the Rural Payments Agency, commissioned by DEFRA last autumn, has recently concluded. We will publish the recommendations of the review and our response to it shortly.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I wish him well in his work. As he knows well, each claim to the RPA costs £1,700, and the RPA has been characterised by mistakes and inefficiency throughout its years of operation. What reassurance can he give farmers in my constituency and throughout the country that those problems will improve?

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think he knows that the impossible we can do at once, but miracles take a little longer, and putting the RPA right probably comes within the last part of that saying. I assure him that I am extremely determined to get a grip on the problems at the RPA; I am conscious, as I have made clear over recent years, of the problems and the service to many farmers, and we have to get it right. When I publish the review I will also put forward the measures that we propose to take to address them.

Water Bills (South-West)

Andrew George Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman is right and the valuable contributions of those former Members will be missed.

Linda Gilroy was instrumental in organising the many meetings and briefings that we had with Ministers and others, and with the all-party group she produced a very thorough paper on the pressures felt by customers and water companies—and not just South West Water—which in turn fed into Anna Walker’s considerations in her review. In 1989, the privatised utilities were given responsibility not only for the provision of water and the disposal of waste but also for the maintenance of the coastline. The Minister will be well aware that in the south-west we are blessed with some of the most beautiful coastline in the country. Our beaches, bays and coves are famed, and rightly so, but they are an expensive luxury and one that is enjoyed not only by the people of the south-west, but by people from across the country and around the world. They are a common good and to the benefit of the whole public.

South West Water deserves credit for the work it has done to clean up the beaches. It has invested more than £1.5 billion through its clean sweep programme, which has modernised sewage treatment all around the peninsula, removing almost 250 crude outfalls and transforming the bathing waters of the region.

Those improvements are not paid for by the whole public. When the water utilities were privatised, the public in each area became responsible for paying for the maintenance of the coastline in their region. For the people of the west midlands, that was not a problem because they do not have a coastline, but in the south-west we have 30% of England’s coast, and the burden of cost is placed on just 3% of the population. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged the problem when he said, while holidaying in the region:

“I understand the unfairness that people feel in the South West that they are paying a lot of money so that there are clean beaches for people like me from Oxfordshire to come and play on.”

Indeed, the number of tourists to the region continues to grow, with the latest figures showing 21 million visits, the vast majority of which are by people coming from outside the south-west.

The water industry faces many challenges in the years ahead, and none of the solutions comes without a cost. It will have to deal with pollution concerns; better manage surface water and flooding; continue to try to provide an affordable supply of water; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and adapt the service to make it more resilient to climate change.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for what she is saying, all of which I endorse. When she refers to cleaning up the coastline, she is talking about a national asset being paid for by local water rate payers—a point that the Anna Walker review made clear. That is clearly not the case with national galleries or national museums, which are paid for by all taxpayers. We should all reflect on that.

[Alison Seabeck]

Yes, indeed, and I shall return to that point.

It is welcome that all water companies are now expected to produce water resources plans for the Environment Agency and strategic direction statements for Ofwat, both of which are useful indicators to assist in the long-term planning for the sector, but also help in assessing the likely impact of such works on bill payers.