Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Fiona Bruce and David Mowat

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)]

It is clearly unacceptable if the situation that the hon. Lady sets out is the case. I am happy to meet her and work with her to take the action that is needed to make things better.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T6. The Government have provided a welcome increase in funding for mental health support, yet it does not appear to be reaching my constituency effectively, particularly for children. Now there are concerns that the Millbrook unit at nearby Macclesfield hospital might close. Will the Secretary of State look into those concerns?

Rural Broadband (Cheshire East)

Debate between Fiona Bruce and David Mowat

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I agree entirely that the picture is confused and detailed. As I will mention later, it is also split among Departments.

The total funding needed to achieve our aspiration of 100% broadband coverage across the Cheshire and Warrington area by 2015 is £40 million. Although we welcome the BDUK funding support, we recognise that under current plans, it will increase coverage only to 90%. The rural areas to which my colleagues have referred will be among that 10%.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on leading the charge in this debate and on this subject. During her remarks, I think I have heard the word “rural” two dozen times. Does she accept, however, that it is also an urban issue? In parts of Warrington, urban development has massively outstripped broadband infrastructure capability, and the need there is as great as in some of the rural areas mentioned by her and others.

[Fiona Bruce]

I agree entirely. Chapelford, which I know well from my time as a Warrington councillor, is one such area. One cause of difficulties is that although approximately 85% of telephone exchanges can be upgraded, about 15% of telephone cabinets are deemed by the private sector to be uneconomic or unfeasible to upgrade. BDUK financial support will not necessarily include those, either. Will the Minister comment on how they will be provided for, particularly in the areas to which we have referred?

In some areas, broadband coverage appears on paper to be provided, but the area contains white spots. Timbersbrook in my constituency is a good example—it has no adequate coverage at all—as is the Congleton business park. In the neighbouring constituency, the village of Rainow, only a couple of miles outside Macclesfield, is similarly affected. I heard a councillor for the area say only this week that it is faster to post a letter than to use the internet there.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and David Mowat

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point and that is why I prefaced my remarks with the phrase, “What needs to be communicated more effectively is how the Scottish Government can prioritise their funding.” By that, I meant that checks and balances are involved and that that needs to be communicated nationwide. A greater understanding of that needs to be gained.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend’s answer to that intervention was very generous. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should make decisions about priorities in Scotland—about free tuition, prescriptions and whatever else—but the question that remains and needs to be answered is whether the baseline of the block grant, as it is set up, is fair on Scotland, England and Wales.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Let me turn now to the proposals in the Bill. It is only right that I should explain why complete financial independence would not, in my view, be beneficial for the Scottish or wider UK economy. Members of the Scottish National party might say that the Bill’s financial provisions do not go far enough but devolving full economic responsibility while retaining various regulatory and other competences would create a two-tier system that would serve to weaken our economy. Devotees of the two-tier system argue, I believe, on the basis of a fiction, if not a fantasy, that such a fragmented system could exist without disastrous consequences. The Calman commission and the Scottish Parliament’s report on the Bill both rule out financial independence on the grounds that it would create havoc for taxpayers and break up the Union.

In its final report, the Calman commission gave its reasons why income tax should not be fully devolved, including that it would not, in the commission’s view,

“be consistent with the social Union”.

We can add a further reason. There are certain areas of government that a responsible country will retain at a national level, such as defence and national security. They should remain UK-wide in the interests of the shared public good, and fragmenting them would be both inefficient and dangerous for national security. The same basic principles apply to immigration and trade. Unco-ordinated approaches in those areas could lead to potentially disastrous consequences so it is important that we act responsibly and in the whole country’s interest.

Such protections can be afforded only under a single economic framework and any moves to meddle in that area unnecessarily will create more damage than good. It is therefore refreshing that the Scottish Parliament recognises the merits of the Bill’s provisions and, rather than running before attempting to crawl, its report on the Bill does not go so far as to recommend full financial responsibility.

The Bill is about improving the devolution settlement and promoting economic growth. The income tax proposals in the Bill retain the reservation of overall fiscal management within the UK Government, which will ensure that the needs of Scotland are supported alongside a UK-wide strategy of promoting growth and economic stability. I welcome the Scottish Parliament’s Committee’s report on the Bill, which states in paragraphs 36 and 39, with reference to fiscal decentralisation:

“The evidential base was, in our view, remarkably weak, and the claims made did not stand up to challenge or scrutiny…the overwhelming balance of expert economic opinion in Scotland and internationally was that the existing evidence base supports neither any clear link between fiscal decentralisation and an economy’s long-run rate of growth, nor…a precise numerical link between fiscal decentralisation and an increase in GDP.”

It goes on:

“The Scotland Bill is about good government. It is intended to improve how Scotland is governed and align decisions on spending and taxation more closely so that the Scottish Parliament will be more accountable and, in the long run, take better decisions. Better decisions will, in the longer term, mean improvements to many aspects of Scottish public life.”

In true political fashion, I have a favourite section of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee’s report, which was mentioned earlier. In paragraphs 43 and 44, the report states:

“Full Financial Responsibility was the Scottish Government’s alternative to the plans in the Scotland Bill. The Committee did not examine this in detail, as there was no detail to examine. We received no costings for these plans, no material explaining the practical implications for taxpayers, employers, Scotland’s financial sector or collection plans. However, we were able to come to several obvious conclusions. Firstly, as was made clear in evidence to us, fiscal systems serve constitutional ends. Full Financial Responsibility is no exception. The constitutional aim it serves, however, is not the preservation of the UK. Secondly, it is plain that under fiscal responsibility, Scotland would run a substantial deficit…Finally, it is clear that no thought has been given to the effect of these plans on the economy of the UK, to which Scotland will inevitably remain linked…The Committee is clear that the evidence shows that full financial responsibility or autonomy is not a serious alternative to the fully worked out plans in the Scotland Bill.”

Incinerators

Debate between Fiona Bruce and David Mowat

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes my points for me. If the four planned incinerators in Cheshire go ahead, there will be over-provision. There is no need for a further facility at Middlewich. That was confirmed in the original planning refusal, which stated that there would be an over-provision of waste facilities. It undermines the sustainability principle, which is that waste should be disposed of at an appropriate nearby location and should not be transported long distances.

My constituents are also concerned about the environmental and health implications of multiple incinerators in relatively close proximity to one another. Until a better scientific understanding is gained and the public can be reassured about such implications, my constituents feel that the precautionary principle should be applied.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I do not want to go into the details of the incineration in Middlewich, but it is important to understand why we incinerate or combust. This country continues to put more waste into landfill than any other country in Europe, which is a disgrace. There is a large landfill tip in Warrington that causes as much distress for residents as incinerators—I prefer to call them combined heat and power plants. Of course it is wrong to put such things in the wrong place, and we should be cognisant of local planning considerations. We also need to understand that landfill is, environmentally, the worst of all options, and it cannot be right that we continue to have more landfill than any other country in Europe.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, that is why the Middlewich residents are so offended; in November 2007, approval was given for a new landfill site, which is to be positioned less than half a mile away from the proposed new incinerator.

Let me touch on a further problem relating to the Government’s climate change and energy policy. Even if one recognises that waste management needs to be properly framed within a national strategy, there is a good argument to say that the planned incinerator in my constituency would fall foul of important efficiency criteria in the EU waste framework directive of 2008. I am not always fond of the EU, but the directive highlights the importance of efficiency in incineration for the purposes of creating energy and heat. It requires that incinerators be labelled as “recovering” energy from waste only if they have a burn and energy creation efficiency of some 65%. If they do not reach that criterion, they are to be considered a disposal facility. In other words, they would be on a par with landfills.

I am reliably informed that the normal efficiency of incinerators in the UK is about 25%, and that the efficiency of the one in Middlewich, according to the company that wants to build it, would be, at best, 26%. It is interesting to note that one of the original reasons for refusing the initial application was that the applicant had not shown that it had made adequate provision for

“means of grid connection for the recovery and export of energy for the facility.”

Let us not delude ourselves: in the waste hierarchy, a low efficiency rating is on a par with landfill. That is not sustainable and should not be considered environmentally friendly. The Sustainable Development Commission has recommended that only high-efficiency energy from waste plants—namely energy from plants that produce a 65% return on burning waste—should receive Government support, and I agree with it.

Furthermore, the principle that the Government are promoting, whereby local communities should decide how best to deal with their own waste, does not seem to apply either to the process of appealing to the national level, or to the logic of the use of large-scale imported incineration. In reference to an application made by Covanta in the Mid Bedfordshire constituency, the Prime Minister recently said that it is right that

“decisions should be made locally. We want to make sure that all the latest technology for alternatives to incineration is considered, so that we can make sure that we are using the best ways to achieve a green approach.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 851.]

There is clearly consensus on this issue in the coalition.

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said:

“We support modern energy generation from waste where local communities want it and where it makes good environmental sense.”——[Official Report, 1 July 2010; Vol. 512, c. 977.]

I emphasise the words

“where local communities want it”.

That is the principle to which we should adhere. Local people should decide about such matters. We can talk about national policies, but there is one overriding factor that distant decision-makers ignore at their peril: the people of Middlewich do not want the incinerator, and Middlewich is their home.