Agricultural Wages Board

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am genuinely worried that wages will fall when the AWB is abolished, and I am not the only one: the Farmers Union of Wales, which I will come on to later and which represents the bulk of farmers in my area and other farmers in Wales, supports the official Opposition’s stance against the abolition of the AWB. There is a division of opinion and we need to expose it.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman’s logic, so could he talk us through it a little more? If 90% of pay is already above the AWB’s minimum, how come it has not already fallen back to that minimum?

[Mr Hanson]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me develop my argument, he will see that this is not just about pay. He was not here at the time, but the Secretary of State kept me up for 36 hours so he could vote against the minimum wage. He did not do that so that wages could rise; he did it so that wages would not rise. My worry about the abolition of the AWB is based on exactly the same principle: it will remove a floor that protects the work force in my constituency.

As I have said, my constituency depends on agriculture and more than 11% of my constituents work in agriculture. Courses in horticulture and agriculture at Northop college bring in people to train in agriculture. These are key issues. Although Government Members may view minimum rates of pay, overtime, holiday entitlement, sick pay, rates of pay for young workers, compassionate leave, rest breaks, maximum deductions for tied housing, allowances for keeping working dogs and payment of on-call and night allowances as issues of regulation, to my constituents they are bread and butter matters that impact on their lives and they want their representative and others who represent rural areas in Parliament to stand up and speak on their behalf. They are not idle issues.

I am getting a bit long in the tooth. I have been here for 21 years and the first Bill Committee I sat on was for the 1992 employment Bill that abolished every single wages board apart from the AWB. That Bill was taken through this House by the then Member for Stirling, the now noble Lord Forsyth, who is not known for his left leanings, but who decided to maintain the AWB because he recognised, even at that time, that it was crucial for conditions as well as wages.

The national minimum wage has been mentioned. I was very proud to vote for the national minimum wage and am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) is here. It was one of the greatest achievements of the Labour Government. The then Opposition kept this House up late into the evening because they did not support it. Why should we trust a party that does not support the national minimum wage when it says that this measure will maintain or improve pay and conditions?

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I have to admire the way in which Morrisons managed to penetrate every possible news outlet in order to promote its products.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I understand the technical definition, but to many of my constituents a supposed beef product that is actually horse represents a contamination.

May I pursue the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether, if the meat had come from outside the European Union, we would now be looking at an import ban?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a good question. I assume that my hon. Friend means that the product was processed within the European Union. We should not forget that the products withdrawn by Findus were eventually processed in Luxembourg from meat which, we understand, went to Castelnaudary in France and possibly came from Romania, and that they therefore counted as European Union products. Under the existing system, a product from Comigel in Luxembourg would have to present a health risk to enable me to approach Commissioner Borg to request an import ban.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I think I touched on that in my response to an earlier question. There is no doubt that if we can separate wildlife that have this extraordinary debilitating disease—I mentioned 300,000 colony forming units in 1 ml of badger urine—and if we can keep them out of cattle sheds, that obviously helps. However, we have a grass-based system, and for many months in the year, our cattle are out on grass. It is not realistic to live in the countryside and expect to separate cattle from badgers that are going out and hunting for worms. Badgers’ main food is worms, and they go on the ground where cattle are feeding. The hon. Lady is right to say that measures can be taken on farm buildings and it is a nice idea, but that is for the birds when cattle are spending a long time out in the fields, which is where they pick up the disease.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The sniggers and chuckles from Opposition Members at the start of this statement were clearly despicable, but there is no doubt that there is a lot of concern among the general public about this issue. Can we ensure that over the next year we nail down the science, and engage with the public as much as possible to make the case in favour of this cull, if that is the Government’s view next year?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. He is right: we need to win the argument in public and there is a clear argument to be made. I am repeating myself now, but if we look around the world, we see that must bear down on disease in wildlife—as happens in every other western country that I know of—including disease in cattle. That is the only way we will eradicate this disease.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I call Andrew Percy to move amendment 2.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 24, in schedule 5, leave out lines 9 and 10.

In the past few days, many Members will have received e-mails from their constituents about the important issue of the chief coroner’s office. I want to begin by thanking colleagues from across the House for their kind expressions of support for the amendment, and on the broader question of the necessity of change in the coronial system. I tabled the amendment with the full support of the Royal British Legion, Inquest and the British Medical Association, and I have recently found out that Liberty also supports it, which might divide opinion on this side of the House. All those organisations want to see a chief coroner appointed as soon as possible, and my amendment would achieve exactly what the British Legion and others are asking for. Put simply, leaving out lines 9 and 10 would ensure that the chief coroner—a post agreed on a cross-party basis—is left out of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Wright]

I wholeheartedly support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and congratulate him on tabling it. Does he agree that this is part of an evolving military covenant issue whereby we ensure that we fulfil our duty as parliamentarians to the people who serve our country in the most difficult circumstances at the front line and those who support them?

[Andrew Percy]

I do, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. We all want to honour the military covenant; there is no doubt about that across the House. We might sometimes disagree about how best to achieve that, but I think sorting out our coronial system is key to it, and appointing a chief coroner, as agreed on a cross-party basis previously, certainly honours the covenant.

Some polling has been undertaken on this issue, so I can inform the House what the public appear to think about this important matter. Recent polling conducted by ComRes tells us that eight out of 10 people believe the way we treat bereaved armed forces families says a lot about our values as a nation. A further 85% say that families deserve as much support as we can possibly give through the system, while three quarters agree that Britain owes a great debt to the families of those who sacrifice their lives in the service of the country. Furthermore, more than three quarters say we must support the families of deceased armed forces personnel in order to honour the memory of those who have given their lives. That is something that I am sure is shared on all sides.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am not quite sure what that means. Does my hon. Friend mean to say that independent coroners do not currently support the families or does he think that the imposition of a chief coroner will make it better for them? I am quite taken by the idea that we already have independent coroners who talk on behalf of the families and say some things we do not like. I am concerned that a chief coroner might put orders down that people have to obey. I like the independence of coroners.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention, as it demonstrates why the Government’s position does exactly the opposite to what he wants. By placing this in the hands of Ministers, which is what the Government propose, rather than in the hands of a chief coroner, we risk losing independence completely. As to going through the coronial system, sadly, some people have gone through it and have been treated appallingly. I shall provide some examples later. My hon. Friend’s intervention rather supports my arguments.

[Paul Goggins]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his amendment. He rightly emphasises its significance for military personnel and their families, but does he agree that it goes much wider than that? As to the need for a coronial system that is fully independent of the Government and their Departments, I refer him to the report of Dame Janet Smith on the Shipman victims. She came precisely to the same conclusion as him—that we need a coronial system that is fully independent.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has pre-empted part of my speech, which the House will be pleased to know I no longer need to elaborate, so I can somewhat reduce my speaking time. That point was made previously and he is quite right to highlight it.

I want to talk about three key issues: independent leadership, training in oversight and the issue of appeals. Before I do, however, I want to deal with costs. As I said, the Ministry of Justice costings of £11 million for start-up and £6.6 million recurrent for the chief coroner are, in the view of many, inflated. Before I give two examples to prove my point, it is worth considering what the public told ComRes about what they think of costs for an issue like this one. I am second to none in arguing that we need to drive down the costs of government, but there is always a balance to be struck.

According to the ComRes poll, more than two thirds of the public believe that appointing a chief coroner is a matter of principle, not a question of costs. We would all agree that ensuring the most appropriate support to families going through the system must always come ahead of costs. There are two examples from the costings put about by the Ministry of Justice previously in 2008. One is that the IT system will cost £3.8 million, while the second is that £564,000 will be used on a public launch and other publications for this position. I know that the Royal British Legion would be particularly keen to have this discussion. In its alternative to the Government’s proposals, it stated:

“The Royal British Legion and INQUEST would share the Government’s concerns about costings if they were as high as the Ministry of Justice figures suggest”.

The answer is to challenge those costings in a way that the coalition Government have sadly not been able to do since they came to power and to look seriously at the alternative costings put forward by the Royal British Legion and Inquest. It is a bit difficult because I have not had access to all the necessary budget lines. Those organisations have proposed a slower roll-out so the costs can be challenged and spread across the Parliament.

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman is putting his case well. On that point about costings, does he know that the Royal British Legion, Inquest, CRY and a whole host of other organisations, along with Members, have repeatedly tried—whether through parliamentary questions, freedom of information or whatever—to get the information from the Ministry of Justice, yet at every opportunity, it clams up and refuses to give the detailed figures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I do not want to get into too much of a political spat, particularly when I am speaking from the Government Benches, but those organisations have repeatedly made the point that they have been unable to gain access to all the information. Perhaps they did not do so before the general election either. Perhaps it is a systemic problem, but having access to that information is important, particularly if so much emphasis is going to be placed on costs, as appears to be the case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sir Alan Beith]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will give way to my hon. Friends, but then I am going to make some progress.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the families are most important. The families need to have confidence in the system, and they indicated that their confidence would lie with the chief coroner rather than the independent coroner. Does he feel that that is what we should really be doing and that the families know best?

[Andrew Percy]

It is always easy to concentrate on the emotive issues in debates like this, and it can be very powerful, but I also believe there are less emotive reasons for pursing this policy. I would not suggest for a moment than anybody does not want to support families; it is a question of how we drive the reform forward. It is a bit like the discussion last night, when the Conservative party was united but had different tactics.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that it would be possible to have a chief coroner who could provide professional leadership by the designation of an existing coroner without going into the very large costs involved in the original proposal and without involving the chief coroner in running an appeals system, which might more appropriately remain a matter for reference under law to the courts?

[Andrew Percy]

My right hon. Friend makes a point that I was coming to. We have not identified where the savings could be in this system. Many would contend that the costs of adjourned and delayed hearings and of expensive judicial reviews could be taken out of the system by the chief coroner. My concern is that far too much emphasis has been placed on costs.

I said that I was going to talk about three particular issues. The first is independent leadership, which I think we all agree lies at the heart of the chief coroner’s appointment and is the reason for his status as linchpin of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Parliament accepted back then that if real reform was to be achieved, there must be an independent judicial leader with responsibility for spearheading that reform. Independence is key.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I was a member of the Committee that considered the Coroners and Justice Bill, and I remember that it was supported by not only the Government of the day, but the Front Bench of the hon. Gentleman’s party and the Liberal Democrats. One of the key points made by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman was that the person concerned would be independent of Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted another stage of my speech. Although I was not here at the time, perhaps mercifully, I know that the matter was dealt with on a cross-party basis.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to Lady Justice Smith’s report, and I want to refer to five issues that were raised in it. It found that the current system had offered inconsistent levels of service—which I think addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—and that families and friends were insufficiently involved in coroners’ investigations. It found an absence of quality controls and independent safeguards—once again, we see the word “independent”—a lack of consistency, leadership or training, and, in some instances, an absence of medical knowledge. The report also stated that the

“coronial jurisdiction should be re-formed on modern judicial lines, as a national jurisdiction, small in size but comparable to other jurisdictions in having a Chief Coroner'”.

Although it could be claimed that that report said all that needs to be said about independent leadership, the desperate need to address the issue was perhaps put as well as it could have been by the Lord Chancellor in a written ministerial statement on 14 June:

“As the functions to be transferred are limited, and the Office of Chief Coroner not filled, neither the judge nor any other individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture or behaviour of coroners.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 62WS.]

That cannot be right. The Lord Chancellor’s statement implicitly acknowledged the need for judicial, and thus independent, leadership to address the culture of coroners, while simultaneously refusing to address it.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

If the three Front Benches were indeed in agreement in Committee, what has happened since to turn the position on its head?

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down a path on which I should probably not embark, but I repeat that, in my view, the emphasis has been on cost. I agree with the Bill that there should be a burning of the quangos. Having spent 10 years as a local councillor, I know how overburdened the country has become, and I would support any measure that would save money. There is a debate to be had about costs, and I think that that is the debate we should be having, rather than a debate about whether the position exists at all.

The statement made by the Lord Chancellor back in June failed to recognise that the chief coroner’s office was a single senior judicial post with statutory powers. The Government’s proposals will dismantle the office and transfer some, but not—by any stretch of the imagination—all those powers to other judicial and political figures, which risks creating another fragmented structure where lines of accountability are opaque and clear leadership absent.

The second issue that I want to raise is monitoring and training. That was one of the most important functions of the chief coroner under the Coroners and Justice Act, which gave him the job of both monitoring investigations of service deaths and ensuring that coroners who conducted such inquests were suitably trained.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I give way to the hon. Lady, who has a great deal of experience in this area.

[Mrs Moon]

I too was a member of the Committee considering the Coroners and Justice Bill, and I support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. Another issue that should be considered is the inconsistency in the recording of verdicts, especially narrative verdicts, which has been creeping in increasingly. In some coronial systems, coroners are recording up to 59% deaths as “other”, which means that we are unclear about how those people died. Nationally, the average is 14%. That has a particular impact in cases of suicide. We must look ahead, because we know that we shall have a huge mental health problem when our troops come back from the front.

[Andrew Percy]

One of the most important tasks of the chief coroner would have been supplying an annual report to Parliament, which would have enabled issues such as that to be debated here and, indeed, in another place.

Let me return to monitoring and training. The Lord Chancellor’s written ministerial statement made it clear that the provision for ensuring that coroners were suitably trained and the monitoring of investigations would not now be transferred or implemented. Crucially, although the Government claim that their proposals will allow training to happen, the statement removes the requirement for training, and instead puts it under section 37 of the Act, which simply states that training regulations on training “may” be issued.

It also concerns me that the monitoring of service inquests is currently completed by the defence inquest unit. In the context of transparency and accountability, I understand why many would see a conflict of interests. The DIU is part of the Ministry of Defence, which in the case of the deaths of service personnel is also the employer, and it will therefore be an interested party in relation to such investigations.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I was responsible for the establishment of the DIU in an attempt to improve the service that we gave to coroners and thence the service that they could give to service personnel. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is a fundamental conflict of interests, given that the Ministry of Defence is attempting to assist an independent coronial service to such a degree. That separation of powers, coupled with the need to improve service and timeliness for bereaved service families, goes to the heart of the need for a chief coroner.

[Andrew Percy]

The right hon. Gentleman has much more expertise in this area than I do. His powerful comments will have been heard, and I think that they prove exactly why we want the chief coroner in post to ensure that there is monitoring and that it is completely independent of Government.

I have already mentioned the chief coroner’s parliamentary oversight through the annual report, so I will not dwell on that. Instead, let me turn to the issue of appeals. I do not deny that a key aspect of the chief coroner’s functions—hearing appeals—is a bone of contention both in the House and outside. My personal instinct was to be somewhat sceptical, which is why I examined the appeals system in a bit more detail.

I certainly would not advocate the removal of the chief coroner from the Bill if I did not also believe that a chief coroner—as Parliament agreed when it passed the legislation—would reduce the need for so many bereaved people to engage in expensive litigation, as they must at present, through judicial review. I do not think that anyone wants a system in which people’s experience of the system is extended through protracted appeals. However, it cannot be right that at present the only avenue of appeal that is open to the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and who want to challenge the decisions of coroners and their conduct at an inquest, is a complex and expensive judicial review system, or persuading the Attorney-General to exercise his power of fiat. Surely it would be much more cost-effective and efficient for a High Court judge as chief coroner to resolve some legal issue currently resolved in the administrative court. The alternative proposed by the Royal British Legion is to trial this. Therefore, it is accepted that there is a debate to be had about appeals. Adopting the joint RBL and Inquest proposal for an appeals trial is sensible.

Although my knowledge of the subject is limited, I have explained as best I can the most compelling arguments for leaving the chief coroner out of the Bill. I think this is the right way to proceed, and the ComRes poll to which I referred earlier illustrates that I am in good company. One of its findings is that 60% of the public believe a chief coroner should be appointed immediately—although polls must always be taken in the context in which they are asked, and all of us who are involved in politics know how they work. The theme running through the ComRes poll is that people want more support for bereaved families and a system that is independent of Government, and they want that quickly. I think all Members support that.

I readily concede that those who have been through the system are far better advocates of this case than me. In the last few days, we will all have received an e-mail from Gareth Turkington, the brother of Lieutenant Neal Turkington, who served in the Royal Gurkhas and who, sadly, died in Afghanistan. Gareth’s e-mailed letter to MPs contained some powerful phrases about the current system. He says:

“It was one of the most harrowing experiences of our lives…We as a family sought a full, independent, impartial inquest—precisely the function of the coroner—to establish how the event had happened and the circumstances of how Neal was killed. What we witnessed instead was a lack of rigorous investigation and a denial of any form of accountability or responsibility for duty of care towards Neal’s safety.”

Such situations do not only arise in respect of service deaths, as other people have similar experiences of the system. Sue Ainsworth, a lead midwife at the University Hospital of North Tees, also gave evidence on this issue. Her 21-year-old son died from sudden cardiac arrest. Her testimony is powerful. She states that the inquest took eight months and she found the system in many respects to be lacking in any empathy for the situation she had faced. She concludes:

“The coroner’s conduct was unacceptable. When I refused to be quiet at the Inquest and persisted in asking questions, it was then hurriedly concluded with the pathologist and the coroner abruptly leaving the room.”

If that is a manifestation of respect in the system, I would not like to know what disrespect is.

Sadly, such experiences are not isolated incidents. Many coroners fulfil their role perfectly well, but others do not. Although people can point to good and bad practice in the current system, the fact that there is bad practice suggests to me, taking a common sense point of view, that there has to be somebody at the top, such as a chief coroner—or perhaps someone holding a less expensive position—who is independent of Ministers and who can drive this reform, and who ensures there is accountability back to Parliament. That is why, at present, I intend to press this amendment to a Division.

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on his excellent contribution and on tabling his amendment, which we will support. He articulated succinctly and powerfully why the Government are wrong on this issue and must think again. He made it clear that this is not about party politics; rather, it is a matter of national concern. We share that view.

The last time this Bill was debated in the Chamber, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said he was confident that the Government’s proposals to transfer certain statutory functions from the role of chief coroner would “gain widespread support”. He could not have been more wrong. I am not aware of a single organisation that has accepted the wisdom of the Government’s approach; instead, all remain highly critical. In fact, the Government have managed to manoeuvre themselves into a situation where they are pitched against the Royal British Legion, INQUEST, Cruse Bereavement Care, Victim Support, Action against Medical Accidents, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the Child Bereavement Charity, Disaster Action, Support after Murder and Manslaughter, Survivors of Bereavement by Suicide, The Compassionate Friends, RoadPeace and Brake, the road safety charity. It is a remarkable achievement for any Government to find themselves opposed on such an issue by so many organisations that do so much good work for so many people in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, I do not have much time and I must proceed.

I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government have listened to concerns expressed here and in the other place and by a large number of organisations. We have responded to these concerns and we have compromised, so we no longer intend to abolish the office of the chief coroner. Moving the office from schedule 1 to schedule 5 means that we will retain the chief coroner in statute. We have listened to the views of stakeholders on the constitution and remit of the new ministerial board and bereaved organisations committee and we have amended our proposals accordingly. We are considering a requirement for the new board to produce an annual report to Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole wished, strengthening further the accountability for and transparency of our reform proposals.

The Government’s decision not to proceed with full implementation was not taken lightly. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, I thought, made somewhat light of the costs of the chief coroner. The simple fact is that we cannot afford the establishment costs of £10.9 million and running costs of £6.6 million per year, especially when functions can be carried out from within existing resources.

[Andrew Percy]

Can the Minister tell me how much his Department spent on consultants in the past year?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can get back to my hon. Friend on that. I will write to him. I do not have the figures to hand.

I note the concerns that hon. Members have raised about the establishment and running costs, which are of course drawn from the original impact assessment prepared by the previous Administration which accompanied the Coroners and Justice Act. However, even if Opposition Members now dispute their own figures, we cannot escape the fact that new funding is required at a time when the Ministry of Justice is facing budget cuts of some 23%. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) knows very well, we placed a breakdown of our figures in the House of Commons Library months ago. The alternative package of reforms can, I firmly believe, deliver the policy intentions of part 1 of the 2009 Act, but without the expense of establishing and maintaining the office of the chief coroner.

I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that I have considered the new Royal British Legion and INQUEST proposals for an elongated implementation timetable in order to spread the cost of the office of chief coroner, but their proposals would mean a delay to the urgently needed reforms of several years, and there is no guarantee that even then funding will be available to establish the office. At best there would be a delay to reform, and at worst there would be no reform at all.

I began by speaking of the urgent need for reform, and I would urge my hon. Friend to consider the ramifications of his amendment. If the office of chief coroner were to be removed from schedule 5, the office would be left in statute, but with no prospect of its powers being implemented. In turn, without the ability to transfer chief coroner functions elsewhere, we would be prevented from implementing all but a small handful of provisions in part 1 of the 2009 Act. That would leave us with the worst possible outcome: little or no meaningful reform. That would be unacceptable; not least to the families of the bereaved who deserve and expect urgent reform of the system.

I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment so that we can proceed with the urgent and much needed reform of the coroner system.

Forestry (England)

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I think the hon. Lady will know from the e-mails she has received that the fears of many of our constituents were raised by their understanding of the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill, and one of the things she can do is write to her constituents to explain that those clauses have now been removed. The Department always responds to all correspondence directed to it, and the hon. Lady has more than one vehicle to suggest by which the public can engage with us on the way forward in forestry and woodland policy in this country.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and its tone certainly contrasted with the somewhat ungracious response from the Opposition Front Bench; we got no apology for the 25,000 acres they flogged off. The concern in my constituency generally relates to private forests and the public protections we need to ensure we continue to have a benefit. Will the independent panel and the review continue to look at the protections for private forests as well as the public estate?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The public forest estate accounts for 18% of woodland cover in this country, so the vast majority of forest and woodland is in private ownership, and part of the point of moving to a fresh approach with an independent panel and widening the range of questions under consideration is to look at forestry policy and woodland policy in general.

Fisheries

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

I forget the figures for the English fleet, but in Scotland, there are 17 vessels in a catch quota system. That represents about 20% of that fleet—perhaps not; I cannot remember the exact figure. At the moment, that system is a trial. We tried to persuade the Commission—and we will continue to try—that we must move beyond a trial. We want to get every vessel possible into a catch quota system because, for reasons that I will mention, that is the solution. Fishermen are incentivised to do something that gives them more fish, ends discards and is a bottom-up approach. It makes fishermen part of the solution, and instead of being the battered person at the end of the line being hit by a stick, they are given a carrot to find a solution. I will go on to talk about mackerel, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) echoed the point about decentralisation and I know the importance of nephrops to his constituency and the difficulties that are faced there. He rightly mentioned the difficulties of displacement. When we create a management regime that results in less activity in one area, there is a displacement effect. Too often, we have seen the malign effect of displacement round our coastline, and he is right to raise that issue. However, he sensibly discussed the world in which we live. I would love to debate how we got to this point, but that would be a waste both of my time and of the House’s. We should put all our energy into working with a system that we think we might be able to change. For the first time in my adult life and in the experience of people who have been in the House for many fisheries debates, we find the door open to a level of reform that we must try to achieve. I recognise that that is important.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) is an able chairman of the all-party group, which benefits from his knowledge of, and passion for, the subject. He rightly pointed out the importance of the processing industry. We must remember the jobs at stake and the importance to our food security of keeping the infrastructure that we require on land to support the jobs that we are discussing and get the product to market that our fishermen bring ashore. I think that he is rather depressed about the prospects for CFP reform. That probably comes from years of experience, but I hope that we can work with him.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and I have been in and out of meetings and have not been able to contribute to this debate, but I emphasise that the processing industry is incredibly important to us also. It plays a significant role in the Humber region. Things are all interlinked. It is a huge issue for us also.

Flooding (Hull)

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Diana R. Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and I believe there is support for that view throughout the House.

The surface water management plan in Hull, which will have an impact on the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, will bring together the East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull city council, Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency to put together a workable plan. A scoping exercise was undertaken, and the previous Government provided £250,000 to develop the plan further. This summer there will be consultation, including on an aqua green in my constituency in the Orchard Park and Greenwood area, adjacent to the Cottingham area, which the right hon. Gentleman represents. I understand that the aqua green, alongside the other provisions set out in the consultation, would cost about £20 million to implement across the city. I seek reassurance from the Minister tonight about the future of that funding.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I know that she has been a strong advocate for Hull during and since the flooding. While we are on the issue of surface water, I know that significant progress has been made, but the one point on which we do not seem to have made a great deal of progress is having a single number for residents to use to report all surface water flooding. That was a huge issue in Hull and the East Riding on the day of the floods, and we need more progress on it.

[Diana R. Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I hope that the Minister will address that point.

I turn to the issue of small grants to households, which was an important issue in Kingston upon Hull North. The previous Labour Government gave £5 million as part of a grant scheme to enable local authorities to apply to help their residents to protect their homes through the use of flood boards and air brick covers. My local authority, Hull city council, did not apply for that money. There were several rounds of the grant, but there seemed to be confusion about whether the council could apply. I would like to hear from the Minister whether further grant money will be available and whether the conditions could be clearly laid out, so that, as I hope, my constituents can apply for that money through Hull city council.

It is appropriate to pay tribute to the work that Yorkshire Water has undertaken in my constituency by investing in the Bransholme pumping station, which failed in June 2007. It has put in additional pumping facilities, and extra capacity is currently being developed at the station’s lagoon. That is all to be welcomed, but further housing development is planned in the Bransholme area, so we need to keep an eye on whether we actually need a brand new pumping station in the years to come to meet the demand. Also, Yorkshire Water is looking to identify changes that might be necessary to the Humbercare sewerage system in Hull.

I turn to the issue of insurance, which has been an ongoing issue since 2007. The insurance industry has agreed to provide flood cover for most properties, but this is subject to the Government continuing to invest in flood risk management. I am aware of the statement of principles under which the insurance industry will provide insurance. That will run out in 2013. However, the Pitt report found that some people suffered from a hike in premiums and that excesses were much higher than before 2007. For example, Mr and Mrs Pearson lived in Kingswood and were insured with Norwich Union. In late December 2009, they were told that their premiums were to go up 33% and that their excess was to be £6,000. They were also told that if they personally commissioned an independent expert report specific to their property that took into account the flood defences put in place, the insurance company would look again at the insurance premium. They were told by the insurance company that HU7, where Kingswood is, was very likely to flood again, but it did not seem to know anything about the work being undertaken to protect the area. It was only once my office had intervened and provided information from Yorkshire Water that we could get the premium down.

I am concerned that insurance companies do not seem to be aware of what is happening in areas such as Kingston upon Hull North, and are not distinguishing between the risk from surface water flooding and river flooding. At the moment, insurance companies only have to provide insurance for householders who had insurance in 2007, so in Hull the insurance market is essentially closed. Personally, in my home, I have come across this: I cannot shop around in the insurance market, but can only go to the provider I had in 2007. It was found that many people affected by the floods did not have insurance. It is disappointing that although some local authorities have adopted a cheap insurance scheme for council tenants, this has not been taken up by my local authority. I am concerned, therefore, about the future for residents in my constituency and their ability to find affordable insurance in the future.

That leads me on to the point about the continuation of funding for flood protection. It is estimated that by 2035 we will need about £1 billion a year to protect ourselves from flooding. Liberal Democrat Hull city council has constantly asked for more money for Hull, particularly from the previous Government, to invest in flood defences in the city. I was dismayed today, therefore, to read in the media reports that it is likely that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have its budget cut by 30% in the comprehensive spending review. I also understand that plans are being prepared by the coalition Government to privatise flood defence infrastructure, which means that the private sector will have to make up for the coalition Government’s cuts to the Labour Government’s plans for flood defences. Those private sector bodies would then be allowed to pass on the costs of flood protection to the people and businesses in the areas at risk of flooding, in the form of extra council tax, water rates and, perhaps, contributions from business.

Even most market economists would accept that there can be no greater example of a public good than flood defences. We surely cannot hand that responsibility over to the private sector to make a profit at the expense of communities at risk of flooding. Of course we want to encourage private investment and partnership to add to our flood protection work. However, handing flood defence to the private sector is not the way forward to protect us from flooding, and would be another burden on people and businesses in my constituency, which has some of the most deprived areas in the country. They have suffered from the recent recession and, I believe, will now suffer from the policies pursued by the coalition Government.

It appears that the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition is now preparing a flood tax on the victims of flooding in some of the most deprived parts of the country, which, in Yorkshire and the Humber, include Hull, Sheffield and Doncaster. I know that the Minister is a fair-minded gentleman. I hope that he can reassure me this evening that the money put forward by the Labour Government for flood defences will be protected and that DEFRA will stand up to the Treasury by delivering on the commitment made by the previous Government that people would not suffer by having a flood tax imposed on them—a commitment made not only to the people of Hull, but to the people of the rest of east Yorkshire and the other parts of the country that suffered in the flooding of 2007. I hope that he will also be able to answer some of the other questions that I have posed this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

Absolutely; it was an excellent idea brought forward by the previous Government and we will continue with it.

There is a lot of work in progress right now. I know that a working group has been set up in the Hull area to put together a multi-agency flood plan to define the roles and responsibilities of Government Departments and agencies for all flood risks. We have already heard from the hon. Lady about work by Hull city council on a surface water management plan. I understand that measures are in place to ensure joint working across Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire. That type of multi-agency and cross-boundary partnership working is especially valuable.

Consultation by the Environment Agency on the River Hull flood risk management strategy and the River Hull and coastal streams catchment flood management plan began early this summer—on 21 May, I believe—and will run for 12 weeks. It closes on 13 August. The strategy includes a number of recommendations on works to improve the defences in the city of Hull and the maintaining of pumping stations and flood banks. Such consultation is important. I would urge all groups and individuals with an interest in flood management in the area to contribute. That certainly includes farmers and others who naturally have concerns about the impact of possible changes on farm land. Their concerns are matters that will be fully considered as part of the assessment of options.

It would be wrong not to acknowledge that a lot of good work has been done since 2007, including by the people of Hull. The Environment Agency has almost completed a £10 million refurbishment of the Hull tidal barrier, which protects around 17,000 properties from tidal surges. Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency have undertaken to refurbish the equipment in the East Hull pumping station. The work to the agency’s pumps will cost around £900,000 and is due to be completed by the autumn.

There are new flood defence schemes at Burstwick, Hedon, which I believe is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and Hessle. The scheme at Hedon has been completed, while those at Burstwick and Hessle are under construction. Maintenance work and the removal of debris has happened on a number of watercourses, including the western drain, Setting dyke and Cryke beck. There have been improvements to pumping stations at East Hull and Bransholme, and the installation of new infrastructure at Burstwick, New Clough and Westlands drain. There has been a variety of small, local levy-funded projects—work funded by the local levy raised by the regional flood defence committee, plus supplementary funding from the Environment Agency, including projects in or close to the hon. Lady’s constituency.

There is more to do, including at the national level. I have already said that one of DEFRA’s top priorities is to take forward the findings of the Pitt review. Part of that is the work that we are now doing on the review of the regulations provided in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in the context of the better regulation action plan announced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We are working hard on establishing a time scale for implementing the Act, but it is especially pleasing that many of the authorities that will have new duties and powers under the Act are already getting on with managing flood risk. For our part, DEFRA is also working with key players, including local authorities, the Environment Agency and professional bodies, to ensure that they have the capacity to implement the Act.

Implementing Sir Michael’s recommendations is not all about legislative change. Another important part is ensuring that local emergency planners and responders have the tools they need. We know that our emergency services, local authorities and the affected communities all do a fantastic job when called upon. However, one of Sir Michael’s interim recommendations was that we should have a national flood emergency framework to provide a common point of reference. Like Sir Michael, I want to ensure that there is clarity about roles and responsibilities, and a proper multi-agency approach to both flood planning and the emergency response. We hope to publish the framework very soon.

[Andrew Percy]

One very good way of involving communities is through parish councils. In Swinefleet, in my constituency, and in Airmyn parish council, on which I sit, we have produced our own flood emergency plans. I think that we should try to extend that throughout the country, and get parish councils thinking about how they can deal with emergencies such as flooding.

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely agree. We discussed that at length during a recent meeting of the chairs of the forums. There is an enormous amount of work that we can do to encourage such activity. We need a bottom-up, community-led approach. Some might even describe it as a “big society” approach, while others might call it a co-operative movement. I do not care what it is called; what is important is to understand that a lot of emotion is involved in protecting people’s homes. I have seen wonderful examples of communities pulling together and not only enjoying the process, but creating a flood watch scheme rather like a neighbourhood watch scheme. People keep an eye on the excellent data that the Environment Agency now publishes, which enables them to provide information, make plans and take action whenever that is required.

It is also worth mentioning Exercise Watermark. On taking office, I was determined that the pressures on budgets should not prevent such an important exercise from taking place. Watermark will be a comprehensive test of local and national preparedness, and will no doubt yield some important lessons for us all. I am delighted that the Humber local resilience forum will be involved in the exercise, which is planned to take place next March.

Let me end by giving the hon. Lady an assurance. Yes, we face very difficult financial circumstances, and yes, DEFRA faces the challenge of identifying the savings that are necessary to the Government’s plans for dealing with the deficit. However, our absolute priority is to ensure that our flood defences remain as robust as possible. Of course I cannot guarantee that every single scheme will continue—I would not give that impression at a time when we are going through such a difficult process—but I can assure the hon. Lady that flood resilience is an absolute priority.

This Government want to continue in the spirit of the last Government, and to ensure that the schemes that are needed are there. We want to ensure that we are using every possible means to access funds—to use local resources and, when possible, levy funding—and also to ensure that we are fulfilling our responsibilities as a Government. We will not satisfy everyone, but I can assure the hon. Lady that this is an absolute priority for the Department and the Government.

Question put and agreed to.