Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

‘(5A)

(a) In exercising the power under subsection (3) the Secretary of State may make an order containing a scheme for the provision of financial assistance to customers whom the Secretary of State considers are disproportionately adversely affected by the water charges with a view to reducing the impact of those water charges.

(b) The scheme shall—

(i) specify the customers whose charges are covered by the scheme,

(ii) set out the basis of the adjustment of the charges, and

(iii) specify the duration of the adjustment.

(c) An order shall not be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Water company social tariffs—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall provide in regulations for the introduction of minimum standards for water company social tariffs, by 1 April 2013.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(3) Ofwat shall publish 12 months after the passing of this Act and every year thereafter a league table of water companies reporting the performance of the provision of social tariffs and the number of households spending more than 3 per cent. and more than 5 per cent. of their disposable income on water bills.’.

[Gavin Shuker]

Both the amendment and the new clause deal with the issue of water affordability for customers, but they do so in two different ways. Although I feel certain that a man as reasonable as the Minister will want to accept both improvements to the Bill, I should add that I intend to press them to a vote if necessary.

We made clear on Second Reading that, as a responsible Opposition, we would not seek to frustrate the will of the Government in legislating for a reduction in customer bills throughout the south-west. We accept that Government action should be taken to ensure that water remains affordable for South West Water customers following the botched privatisation of the early 1990s. We all benefit from the “national treasure” status of Cornwall and Devon’s spectacular coastline, just as—this was pointed out by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on Second Reading—we benefit from London’s incredible museums, which are also supported by Government action.

I pay tribute to Members in all parts of the House who, over a period of years, have sought to correct this historic injustice. Our work in government in commissioning Anna Walker to look at the problem of water affordability in the south-west has been coupled with action by the present Government in legislating for payments to be made. Let me make it clear to all Members that we support Government action to reduce customer bills in the south-west.

Amendment 1 is not in any way a wrecking amendment. It seeks to improve the legislation by providing for proper parliamentary oversight of the wide-ranging powers in clause 1, which—let me be honest—I suspect are intended not to involve the Secretary of State in some kind of land grab, but to avoid the Bill being classified as something other than a money Bill. I can reassure south-west Members that if the amendment were adopted, we would not use the additional scrutiny for which it provides to frustrate the will of the House. Its inclusion would, however, serve as an entirely proper safeguard to prevent the Secretary of State, or her successors, from abusing the powers given to her and extending financial inducements in any way for any reason.

Amendment 1 would ensure that the Secretary of State makes an order when she wishes to exercise the power in clause 1 to give financial assistance to a water and sewerage company in order to secure a reduction in household bills. The amendment requires the scheme contained in her order to

“specify the customers whose charges are covered by the scheme”,

so that there is clarity about the households who will benefit from a reduction. It requires the scheme to set out the basis for the reduction in charges, so that everyone understands why the reduction is being made in the first place and to ensure that the Government’s logic is tested and sound. Crucially, it requires the scheme to

“specify the duration of the adjustment”,

so that this Parliament does not write blank cheques, and so that the most cost-effective option can be considered over an appropriate length of time.

In short, the Government will be required to answer the questions that need to be answered if effective parliamentary oversight is to be exercised. We feel that that is especially important given that the Secretary of State can give the assistance in any form whatsoever, including grants, loans and guarantees, and given that, because this is a money Bill, it will receive just one day of scrutiny in the other place.

We believe that when the Secretary of State wishes to use the powers granted by the Bill in the future, the least she can do is lay out her argument before a representative Committee of the House. I say that for one simple reason. As new clause 1 makes clear, there are numerous, increasing and varied threats to affordable water, and as the Government’s own water White Paper makes clear, our climate is changing, which has profound implications for the scarcity of water. New infrastructure may be required to supply fresh water, while—as the Government have also made clear—complying with higher standards for waste water will require expensive construction projects such as the Thames tunnel. More regions will seek to make a similar case to that of the south-west, and now that the principle has been established by the Government’s actions, we require a mechanism to test the logic of successor Secretaries of State.

Let me give an example. According to yesterday’s Evening Standard,

“The boss of Thames Water today warned that bills will have to rise to pay for new pipes and reservoirs if customers are to avoid more hosepipe bans in future.

Chief executive Martin Baggs, who announced yesterday that the first hosepipe ban in six years will come into force on April 5, said Thames was ‘living on the past’ and needed to step up levels of investment.

He told the Standard: ‘The last two years have been exceptionally dry and there needs to be flexibility in the system to deal with that.

The flexibility needs to come from one of two directions: it means people must use less water during those extreme conditions or we have got to have extra resources so people don’t have to have those restrictions.’

Mr Baggs wants clearance from the regulator Ofwat to step up investment when the company negotiates its next five-year funding plan from 2015.

London water bills are already set to go up by an inflation-busting 6.7 per cent next month to an average of £339 per household.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank Madam Chairman—my hon. Friend—for putting that on the record. I am delighted that the Opposition Front Benchers support what the Bill seeks to do for bill payers in Devon and Cornwall and that they have chosen not to oppose it in any way. I do not think that the case is proven that either amendment 1 or new clause 1 will make a huge difference or improve the Bill significantly, but they do touch on two areas that I hope the Minister will address.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call the Minister—

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chairman]

Ah, I call Julie Hilling. You were a little late, but I am glad that you have joined us.

[Julie Hilling]

I apologise, Mr Hoyle, for being a little slow in standing to indicate my intention to speak. You can take it that I was confused about which clauses were being debated at which time.

I want to speak briefly about new clause 1 and, in particular, to press the point of a national social tariff. In the north-west, the affordability of water is affected by deprivation. Unlike the south-west, it is not affected by geographical issues or expenditure. We are a region with considerable difficulties and the bills of United Utilities, which is the north-west water company, are close to the national average, but income deprivation is worse than in any other region. More than half of the country’s most deprived communities are in the north-west, even though we have only 13% of England’s population. Ofwat’s analysis shows that once households in the South West Water region receive their proposed £50 bill reduction, affordability problems will be more severe in the north-west than in the south-west. Company social tariffs will not solve the problem, however, as too many customers in the north-west are in financial need to make the in-house cross-subsidy work properly. We therefore need a national social tariff scheme that all water companies would pay into. Taking the hands-off approach of leaving it to water companies to provide their own affordability schemes, and certainly giving them the choice of whether or not to provide it, will not help the people who are most in need in Bolton West.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) Financial assistance may only be given under subsection (1) if the financing of the infrastructure is being secured by a group company which has adopted the equator principles.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) Financial assistance must not be given to any company which has a debt to equity ratio of more than 65%.’.

Amendment 10, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Secretary of State may only grant financial assistance after a business plan for the proposed infrastructure has been approved by Ofwat and the National Audit Office.

(5B) The business plan must demonstrate that the company carrying out the infrastructure has adequate capital resources to complete the infrastructure project.’.

[Simon Hughes]

This issue is of significant interest to those of us who live in the Thames Water area. Some 20% of the population of the United Kingdom do, so it is not an irrelevant issue to people across the country who pay water rates. Specifically, I am talking about colleagues who have constituencies in Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire, Essex, Kent, Hampshire and Greater London, and the issue raises broader questions about how the Government and Ofwat, the regulator, deal with water companies, their financing and, specifically, the financing of major projects.

I shall make some preliminary comments that relate to all three amendments. I am grateful to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for engaging with the issue; I am grateful for the engagement on Second Reading; and I am grateful for the correspondence that I have had with the Secretary of State since Second Reading. I shall refer to that and read some of it into the record.

First, in parts of London and, certainly, in my constituency, one of the most significant current debates is about whether there will be a Thames tunnel, and Thames Water’s proposal is that to address the current system’s inefficiency and inability to deal with London’s sewage, understandably because the system was created in the Victorian era, new infrastructure—a main sewer, in effect—needs to be built to cope with current and future needs.

There is an ongoing debate, which I do not propose to get into today, about whether the current plan for the proposed tunnel is the right answer. In summary, sewage capacity is already being built to the east of London, in the Lee valley; and there is a proposal—the projected costs of which have risen to £4.1 billion—for a long tunnel, travelling from west London not far from here, along my constituency and ending up at the sewage treatment works in east London.

Some people say that the only solution is the currently proposed tunnel; others say that it would be better to have a shorter tunnel and some other forms of sewage alleviation. That debate is ongoing, but in the end decisions will have to be made. There is a whole planning process for deciding whether the tunnel will be built.

Secondly, there is a debate—in constituencies such as mine and in boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham, and Wandsworth—about where, if there is to be a tunnel, the main sites of activity should be. In the middle of Bermondsey, a very large site is proposed for drilling down to create the shaft from which the tunnel boring will happen, both west and east, at a place called Chambers wharf. In the first round of consultation, the proposed site was King’s Stairs gardens, by the Rotherhithe tunnel. That is a greenfield site, and the proposal was not at all popular. We have managed to persuade Thames Water that that is not a good idea, but there is a tale of unexpected, or unwished-for consequences, because having won a battle to save one site we then found that the company came up with another site next door, taking the pressure off one community but immediately transferring it not far away. That is a separate debate, and I do not propose today to get into the detail of where the sites should be. I see my constituency neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in the Chamber, and many of us have a constituency interest—big and small—in where the sites should be.

The third issue—the issue of the Bill—is whether the Government should, if necessary, provide financial support to Thames Water for such a project, and if so, the terms and conditions under which it should be granted. Clause 2, which all my amendments would change, is entitled “Financial assistance for major works”. I shall not read it all into the record, as people can turn to it, but it proposes the insertion into the Water Industry Act 1991 of a new provision, section 154B, of which I shall read the first proposed subsection:

“If the Secretary of State considers it desirable to do so, the Secretary of State may give financial assistance in connection with—(a) the construction of water or sewerage infrastructure, or (b) the carrying out of works in respect of existing water or sewerage infrastructure.”

In further proposed subsections, there are various conditions, one of which is:

“Financial assistance may be given in any form and in particular may be given by way of—…grant…loan…guarantee…indemnity…the provision of insurance, or…the acquisition of shares in or securities of a body corporate.”

My first amendment, amendment 4, proposes:

“Financial assistance may only given under subsection (1) if the financing of the infrastructure is being secured by a group company which has adopted the equator principles.”

I shall come back to that.

Secondly, I want to test the Government’s reaction to amendment 5 and my proposal:

“Financial assistance must not be given to any company which has a debt to equity ratio of more than 65%.”

That precise figure is relevant, but there is a much bigger issue about what the financial past and present of a company should be if it is to receive Government support.

My third amendment, amendment 10, states:

“The Secretary of State may only grant financial assistance after a business plan for the proposal infrastructure has been approved by Ofwat”—

the regulator—

“and the National Audit Office…The business plan must demonstrate that the company carrying out the infrastructure has adequate capital resources to complete the…project.”

--- Later in debate ---

I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Hoyle. I am sorry if it was a rather longer perambulation even than what people thought the ring main would have been had it been a ring main—although actually it is going to be a long pipe. There will be further debate next week on other issues, but I am keen that DEFRA, the Government and all other Departments focus on the need to end this scandal, which has existed for several years, and do not allow Thames Water to get away with what is probably the worst example of financial management leading to the worst exploitation of the consumer and the taxpayer. I hope that the Government will be robust in their response.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The good news is that I am not going to judge the speech or the ring main.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will, I hope, be a little briefer than the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). I just want to make a few remarks arising from his comments and amendments.

I am absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman on the general principle that in going ahead with the Bill, which I believe has all-party support—I am not sure about him but he is not pressing his amendment—we must protect both public money and the money of the public. By public money, I mean, first, any underwriting of major capital schemes, such as the Thames tunnel. Secondly, this is a large private multinational company—I appreciate his research into its holdings and complex structure—and we must ensure that it pays taxes in the UK.

At the same time, however, we must also look after the money of the public and ensure that not a penny more is paid in increased water charges, particularly given that water charges are already rising above the rate of inflation for all water users across the UK, including Thames Water customers. I was somewhat reassured on Second Reading when the Minister said that the Government shared those concerns and that he was sceptical about the project—at least about whether its financing was what Thames Water said it was. There would be broad agreement on that.

I also agree with many of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark about Thames Water, particularly under the ownership of RWE. During my first two or three years in the House, Thames Water was my bête noir, partly because of how it dealt with leaks—digging up roads all around London in a completely ad hoc, unconcerned way and leaving workings for months at a time—while still not getting to grips with the problem. Furthermore, the problem of sewer flooding, particularly in west London, has been a blight on people’s lives. Year on year, thousands of basement and ground-floor properties in my constituency are flooded by sewers, yet little attention is paid to it. And, indeed, there are Thames Water’s financial arrangements, which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about.

It is only right to balance that, however, by mentioning that Thames Water’s performance has improved markedly in the past few years in many of those areas, although we should continue to be concerned about its financial structures. A lot has been written in the papers in the past few days about the current drought and impending hosepipe ban and other possible measures, and the water companies are rightly under scrutiny. I note that in total—this is not just Thames Water—water companies are likely to report annual profits of £1.5 billion and that they are currently leaking about one quarter of the water they provide. They provide about 14.6 billion litres daily, and about one quarter of that is being leaked. It has been pointed out quite correctly that the hosepipe ban will save only 20% of the water being leaked daily.

The water companies, then, have a long way to go. Many of their problems were caused by the botched privatisation under the then Conservative Government and the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been an incentive for companies to beef up their profits to make themselves ripe for takeover, to sell on at a profit and not to worry during those years about their consumers and the cash cow that comes from having an effective local water monopoly.

Everyone will be grateful for the research that the right hon. Gentleman has done into the financing structures. I am less sure, however, that his amendments would deal with that. I will not spend long on this because I suspect that the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), will explain, not as eloquently as me but forensically and analytically, how the Labour amendments would provide the necessary safeguards in a less prescriptive and detailed but more effective way to ensure that if any projects come forward for financial assistance, they are tested in the House first to ensure that the assistance is necessary.

I depart from the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the effect that his amendment might have on the clause. In the end, we need a project in London that will resolve the daily, sometimes weekly, regular flow of huge quantities of sewage into the Thames. On this, I am not sure where he is coming from. When we debated this matter last September in Westminster Hall, he said:

“I also put in a short response to the private commission that was set up by some interested local authorities and chaired by Lord Selborne.”—

in fact, it was set up by Hammersmith and Fulham council—

“The commission has argued that we must have a totally different direction. I am not persuaded by that. The Thames tunnel is the best direction. The previous Government came to that view and the present Government have held to it.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 316WH.]

That was in September. In February, he said:

“I am now clear that, since the end of the first round of consultations in 2011, the arguments for a review of the full tunnel proposal and possible alternatives have substantially increased.”—[Official Report, 29 February 2012; Vol. 541, c. 391.]

I am not sure what happened between September and February. This is important because we must find an effective solution. There is no point putting forward half measures.

Fisheries Council

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I suggest speedier answers and quick questions? Then, we will get everybody in.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on resisting the more extreme ideas that came from the summit over the weekend. Does he accept, though, that one of the dangers is that as a result of the cuts in the number of days at sea, fishermen may not be able to catch their full quota? Will he undertake to keep the position under review and, if that proves to be the case, go back to Brussels in a year and argue for changes?

Fisheries

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am going to reduce the time limit to four minutes. I want to get everybody in, so I ask for brevity, where possible, and fewer interventions. Where people intervene and then expect to speak, I am going to drop them down the list. Please, let us see if we can get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Glindon]

Yes; the Fish Fight campaign has demonstrated that nationally.

Consumer education would, one hopes, help with marketing the catch that is currently discarded. Ultimately, however, our local fishermen believe that the prospect of a complete end to discards has not yet been set out in sufficient detail to be a viable prospect, and that further debate with the industry is needed.

Livelihoods have been diminished in our fisheries, with resulting economic and social downturns across communities. As the Government are committed to localism, that should be extended to DEFRA’s approach to the common fisheries policy on behalf of our fishing communities. I firmly believe that our prosperity does not depend simply on creating new industries and businesses but on sustaining those that already exist, which are trying hard to survive. It is in the hands of the Government to negotiate a fair deal for the reform of the common fisheries policy, to ensure the future of our fishing communities in a way that meets the vision of IFCA.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and other hon. Members on securing the debate. I strongly support the motion, which highlights the key points in the broad-brush approach of responding to the failure of the common fisheries policy, addressing in particular the problem of centralised management, the need for a more regionally controlled method of eliminating the problem of discarded fish and the need for a multi-annual basis for the future management of the common fisheries policy. Those who, like the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and I, have engaged in these debates over many years will reflect on the degree of consensus that has emerged in the past decade. That will not only strengthen the position but will provide a greater sense of purpose and direction for the Minister. I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that not only is the Minister up to the task, but he will have the full support of the House in his work.

I am disappointed that we will not have a further opportunity to discuss this issue, other than today’s inevitably truncated debate. I hope therefore that the Minister will make himself available to the all-party parliamentary group and other groups around the House so that we can discuss the impact of the European Commission’s proposals regarding the future of total allowable catches and quotas around the UK coast.

I want briefly to address two issues, the first of which concerns the Government’s consultation on domestic fisheries and management reform for the under 10 metre sector, which clearly needs to be tidied up and regularised. I have taken a delegation from my constituency to see the Minister about this and he knows that there is significant alarm and concern about the impact that the reforms might have on the under 10 metre sector, not least in relation to the reference period that has been used by the Government for the possible future allocation of quota in forthcoming years.

In the Government’s response to the consultation, which came out a fortnight ago, the Minister announced the intention to try alternative management approaches before introducing far-reaching changes to the current system. The intention is to launch three pilot schemes next year. Having discussed this with fishermen around the coast of my constituency, I know that there is enthusiasm for putting forward the west of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly as a potential area in which a pilot scheme might be advanced. That could be a means by which the area has some influence over the future development of that policy.

The second issue I want to address is the need to make sure not only that scientists work with fishermen but that fishermen work with scientists. My constituent Shaun Edwards and his crew saved 47 passengers in heavy seas from the dismantled Fryderyk Chopin vessel 100 miles south-west of the Isles of Scilly on 28 October last year. He spent more than 60 hours taking them back to harbour at Falmouth, but sadly lost his job as a result of doing so. He was working for the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science as an accomplice fisherman—I think the Minister knows about this case—and that is a great loss to science, as he was assisting CEFAS in its work.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think before intervening. He has already made a speech, and we are running out of time. More Members have indicated that they wish to speak. It is up to the Member in charge but, to be honest. I would be disappointed if the hon. Gentleman intervened.

[Dr Whiteford]

I shall move on, Mr Hoyle.

Exaggerated claims have been made about the benefits of transferable quota schemes. Some are more successful than others. The proponents tend to ignore the unintended consequences, especially for fishing communities—a point that was made earlier—but the key factor is improved governance. I therefore urge the Minister to look carefully at that. I welcomed his comments last week on this, and I urge him to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are struggling for time, and if Members shrink their speeches so that everyone who wishes to speak can do so, I shall be very happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I had intended to talk about discards and the local management of fisheries, but as the points that I would have raised have been well made by other Members, I shall move quickly to my final point—securing a fair deal for the under-10s.

At present the under-10 metre fleet is treated poorly—as a second-class citizen comprising 85% of the national fleet, but with access to only 4% of the UK quota. The fleet needs to be enfranchised and we must move away from the current system of quota control that lacks flexibility and transparency. The Minister has commendably put forward proposals for the future management of English fisheries. He is right to attempt to do what most of his predecessors have put in the “too difficult to tackle” category. I commend him for introducing the pilot scheme that will operate from January.

However, there is a real concern that a rights-based method of control is not in the best interests of the under-10s. The problem is that there is no easily defined starting reference point on which to base a fair allocation for them. There is also the worry that globally there is evidence that rights-based systems do not work and quickly result in the loss of quota for the inshore sector. The evidence from Denmark is contradictory at best.

I commend Jerry Percy, now fishing in Wales but originally from Lowestoft in my constituency, for responding constructively to the consultation and coming forward with NUTFA’s—the New Under Tens Fishermen’s Association—proposals, which provide a way forward for the under-10s. The phrase, “If you can’t beat them, join them” springs to mind, but he is right to propose a dedicated inshore producer organisation.

I conclude by saying that there are three considerations on which the future management of domestic fisheries should be built. First, there must be recognition that quota is public property. Secondly, we must replace the current system whereby no one appears to know who holds quota with a transparent system—a register of holdings. Finally, quota should be only in the hands of working fishermen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I need to bring the Minister in at 2.50 pm. I call Kelvin Hopkins.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last year, this debate took place in Westminster Hall and lasted for three hours. The request was made to have the debate here in the House, to which everybody could contribute. Will the Deputy Speaker consider the process and the time scale, because we thought we were going to have a three-hour debate here as well?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I understand the feeling running through the House today. A lot of Members wanted to contribute and the debate has had to be cut short. I am sure that that will be taken on board for future debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House considers that the Common Fisheries Policy has failed to achieve its key objective of producing a sustainable European fishery; welcomes the review of the policy by the European Commission; and urges Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that a revised Common Fisheries Policy makes particular provision for—

(a) a move away from a centralised management system to a system of regional management of fisheries involving all stakeholders and strengthening of the local management of the 12 mile limit;

(b) a manageable and practical scheme to eliminate the problem of discarded fish; and

(c) the replacement of the current system of annual quotas with a multi-annual system of management focussed on conserving fish stocks within a sustainable fishing industry, in particular to protect the viability of low impact fishing.

Royal Assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Localism Act 2011

Education Act 2011

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

You have only just come into the Chamber!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, but it is up to the Minister to give way if he wishes to do so.

[Nicholas Soames]

I apologise to the House and to the Minister for asking to intervene when I have only just arrived. I hope that the House will forgive me. I have been at a meeting of the 1922 Committee.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has been doing. May I ask him to cast a particular eye over the very serious environmental problem of the gross over-extraction of water from rivers in general and in particular from chalk streams, which are waters of international renown and importance in this country? Will he tell us what level of extraction he considers acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that we are very short on time and I am going to introduce a five-minute limit?

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 12—Youth Justice in Wales—

‘A joint committee shall be established to oversee the exercise of powers and responsibilities relating to youth justice jointly between the Secretary of State, or any body to which the duties of the Youth Justice Board have been transferred under an order made under section 1, and Ministers of the National Assembly for Wales.’.

Amendment 33, page 22, line 17, schedule 1, leave out

‘Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.’.

[Alun Michael]

I am very pleased to be able to defend the Youth Justice Board, which was established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for which I had responsibility as deputy Home Secretary. The Act is widely respected as a practical and effective piece of legislation, which also established the youth offending teams, the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and antisocial behaviour orders, changes that have all been effective in cutting crime and reducing reoffending.

The success of the youth offending teams is due in large part to the insight, independence, creativity, leadership and clear focus on cutting youth crime that the Youth Justice Board has provided, and which a Government Department cannot provide. The facts of that success are clear. Around 90,000 young people under 18 were brought into the youth justice system for the first time in 2000, and there were about 50,000 first-time entrants in 2010, a reduction of 45%. Reoffending by young people was reduced by 27% between 2000 and 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. The number of young people under 18 held in custody is down by more than 25%. In August 2000, 2,968 young people under 18 were in custody, and in August 2011, 2,106 were in custody. The Audit Commission has confirmed that the system works well.

In 2010, the incoming Justice Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), pledged to use the justice reinvestment report of the Justice Committee as their textbook for their time in office, but to do away with the Youth Justice Board signals that they have abandoned that promise. A wide range of organisations is appalled by the proposal to do away with the Youth Justice Board, but I will mention just two.

The Association of Chief Police Officers said:

“The recent disorder in London and indeed other areas of the country have shown that crime committed by young people should be carefully and seriously considered. The performance of the youth justice system under the leadership of the YJB has been considerable.”

It went on to warn that we would lose some of the successful joint initiatives that have been developed between the police and the Youth Justice Board. Finally, it makes the damning comment:

“There has been no evidence put forward to date that demonstrates the proposed transfer of the YJB’s functions to the Ministry of Justice will deliver better results.”

The fact is that it will not.

The Magistrates Association, speaking of the Youth Justice Board, said that

“the Magistrates Association from first-hand experience would say that it has a vital and continuing role to play in the justice system. Its very raison d’etre for magistrates is that it provides continuity of policy, strategy and implementation in a way that a general approach through the wider Ministry of Justice cannot deliver.”

It warns that

“the coherence that is now one of the successes of the system will be compromised and seriously damaged.”

By implication, the Government know that the Youth Justice Board has been a success, because they are not abolishing its role, but nationalising it. I did not know that Ministers were quite so left-wing or old-fashioned in their approach. I can only assume that No. 10 is demanding a tick in the box for abolishing a quango and does not care about the damage that will be done.

Over time, if the Youth Justice Board is taken into the Department for Justice, the Department will lose the expertise that has been drawn together within the board. If those who work in the board wanted to be civil servants, they would have applied to join the civil service. I hope that that attrition will be slow, but it will be inevitable. Government Departments are not good at running things, and the strength of the board is its focus on cutting youth crime, the independence and respect that it has earned and its capacity for working in partnership with others, which is why new clauses 11 and 12 are important. That point about partnership is demonstrated by the two organisations that I quoted and many others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael]

The Minister has been seduced by office into bad decisions, but in the best interests of securing a vote on the retention of the Youth Justice Board, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Power to abolish

Amendment made: 5, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

‘() a co-operative society,

() a community benefit society,

() a charitable incorporated organisation, or’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Schedule 1

Power to abolish: bodies and offices

Amendment proposed: 32, page 21, line 11, leave out

‘Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales’.—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful to inform that House that, having considered the matter further, the Government will not move amendments 47 and 48.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I thank the Minister for that notification.

[Charlie Elphicke]

(Dover) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I say, on behalf of the people of Dover, how very welcome that is? Not everything in this House is political and partisan; some matters touch and concern our constituencies and affect us as constituency MPs.

[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.

Bovine TB

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say before I bring any more Members in that there is a lot of pressure on time, so short questions and certainly short answers will be very helpful?

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for all their work in looking at all sides of this argument. In 1997, 3,700 cattle were culled because of TB. By 2009, it was 37,000, and the point that Ian Paisley made—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not meant to mention Members’ names. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his question.

[Neil Parish]

The number of cattle slaughtered in those years has meant huge heartache for farmers, nowhere more so than in the part of Devon that I represent. The Republic of Ireland has had a cull that has reduced by 30% the number of infected cattle, so I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

This is a balanced package of measures for the control and eradication of TB in cattle, and at its foundation are cattle movement measures. My hon. Friend is quite right, and we are looking to tighten up on pre-movement testing. We have already introduced an expansion of areas for more frequent testing. We are extending the use of gamma testing, and we will be strengthening enforcement of TB surveillance and control. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are tightening up on cattle movement as an integral part of this package of measures.

Royal Assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2011

Finance Act 2011

European Union Act 2011.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are four minutes and three speakers left—we must finish by 5.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are two minutes left. I call Tessa Munt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Mr Gavin Shuker for the Opposition. He has 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

I am glad to associate myself with those sentiments. There are serious questions to be asked about the process—we will certainly ask them at a later date—but the most important thing about tonight’s vote is that we follow the Members who raised the issue in the first place through the Division Lobby and ensure that a ban is enacted.

One of my major concerns if we do not pass the motion is that circuses are saying that the Government’s licensing scheme could produce an increase in the number of performing animals in British circuses. Surely, that alone must give us pause for thought. The issue is straightforward, and the solution is pretty clear. The Government should introduce a ban under the previous Government’s Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Events have moved on in the House since we started the debate. It now seems clear that there will be a free vote. I am glad to hear that because I believe that, on such issues of conscience, we are strongest as a House when we stand together against practices that have no place in a modern society. Perhaps more importantly, I believe that the DEFRA ministerial team had the right position in the first place. They instinctively felt that a ban was the right way go on the issue. For that reason, I should like to encourage them to go through the Lobby with us tonight to make a clear and definite case about the kind of society that we seek to create, and in doing so, we will be much stronger as a House together.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the Minister, may I suggest that we have until five to 6 before I call the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)?

Fisheries

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call Zac Goldsmith, may I suggest that I am minded to increase the time limit to 10 minutes, or possibly 12 minutes, depending on how long the opening speeches last?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I should let the House know that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) have been selected. She may move them later.

Before I call Mr Austin Mitchell, I remind the House that I have extended the limit to 12 minutes.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is the one who promised the north-east that the region would suffer more than most from Tory policies. The Forestry Commission owns 67,000 hectares of forest in the region, more than anywhere else in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have abandoned the people of the north-east, and now want to sell or give away their forest heritage and their play places?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Cunningham, everybody quite rightly wants to intervene, but we have six minutes per speaker, and every time someone makes an intervention, another minute is added. All I am bothered about is getting as many Members in as possible. If we are to have interventions, they have to be short and very quick.

[Helen Goodman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I notice that the heritage forests, which are to be saved, are in the south of England, not the north.

People need forests for the physical, mental and spiritual freedom that they get from them, but the Treasury has succumbed to what used to be called political arithmeticians. Nothing has changed. A parliamentary committee of inquiry in 1763 was told in evidence that there would be a loss of hedgerows and a decline in the linnet population. It is perhaps not a coincidence that Trevelyan, the great historian, became a founder of the National Trust. His view was that

“without access to wild nature the English would spiritually perish”.

I am therefore calling on Ministers and the Secretary of State to stop this fire sale. The hastily-put-together retreat of selling the forests to community organisations is utterly ludicrous. Why should people pay for what they already own? The forest is a place for free spirits. Those spirits will not be quenched by this pathetic, mean, small-minded Government. The inestimable Teesdale Mercury has launched a “Hands of Hamsterley” campaign. I am calling on everyone who cares to come to Hamsterley forest on 26 February for the ramble in aid of keeping Ministers’ hands off Hamsterley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows Savernake forest in my constituency probably better than I do, and we share a great concern about biodiversity and public access. Does he agree that in specifically making those issues the underpinning of the consultation process, along with other key variables, we are doing a far better job to protect public woodlands than the last Government, who sold off 25,000 acres with no consultation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I did not make a ruling from the Chair for it to be breached. This is a very important issue to Members on both sides and many want to speak.

[Guy Opperman]

Each year, 475,000 cubic metres of timber are felled to supply local wood as fuel and to provide timber-intensive local businesses, such as Egger, which is the largest employer in Hexham. It has more than 400 employees. Kielder is a working forest, unashamed of its clearings and felled areas which, while not always postcard pretty, are replanted to provide a continuous cycle on which much of the employment and way of life and the whole ethos of the area are dependent. It is also the biggest employer in the north Tyne area.

I have worked closely with Northumbria Water, which is responsible for Kielder Water, the largest artificial lake in the UK. It sits at the heart of the forest. The development of these vast resources is already subject to a 25-year investment plan which has outdoor activities and all manner of other aspects of the environment at its heart. I find it hard to believe that that will be undeveloped and not taken forward, with a FTSE 100 company at the heart of the development.

Fundamental to this issue is ongoing access to walkers, cyclists, horse riders and a host of others. I hope that these plans will see an additional £31 million boost to the local economy, and several hundred new jobs in the next 10 years in an area where employment is far from guaranteed. I have genuine concerns that all that will be put at risk. I strongly urge the Minister to look closely at the proposals and to consider the many representations that I have received from my constituents who share my scepticism, and to reflect on the possible effect on this special place at the heart of my constituency.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend, I have had many constituents expressing concerns about the Government’s plans and the consultation. Does he agree that access and the maintenance of biodiversity are the crucial components, and we should not have dishonest misrepresentation about the proposals? People deserve to be dealt with honestly. I do not mind opportunism, but I cannot stand dishonesty—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have heard quite enough. We need very short interventions. This debate will otherwise be very disappointing for constituents who are affected by the issue that we are discussing. Hon. Members should know better.

[Guy Opperman]

I have yet to be satisfied that a good economic case has been made, and with so much at stake I await genuine satisfaction that it will be made. I will fight the specific clauses that are linked to this issue in the Public Bodies Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I have received more than 400 comments about these proposals, so I am keen for the consultation exercise to go ahead. I am thinking of holding a meeting in my constituency to meet all 400 contributors, because this is important. I wish to raise the following questions: first, can I be absolutely sure that communities—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Carmichael, I have tried to tell everybody recently that we want short interventions, because we want to get as many people in as possible. Indeed, people who are speaking do not have to take the full six minutes or interventions.

[Mr Leech]

Guaranteeing the future of the woodland is important, but so, too, is the guardianship of that land in the meantime. There is a real fear that the trend to improve the forests will fade over time. What assurances can the Minister give that the woodland will not just be maintained as it is and that the new owners will be compelled to improve both access and the natural habitat? The public estate enjoys 40 million visits a year, a quarter of it is dedicated as a site of special scientific interest and it hosts a wealth of biodiversity. None of those things should be under threat, and they must flourish under this coalition Government.

One of the big unanswered questions is whether or not the private ownership or leasing of forest land will make the savings that the Government anticipate. I am not convinced that these proposals will save any money; they may end up leaving the Government with a bigger bill to maintain the forests, because the sale or lease of commercially attractive forests will mean that their revenue is no longer available to subsidise the running of heritage and other loss-making forests. That was the only sensible point made by the shadow Secretary of State.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way.

On the subject of legislation and the volume thereof, is it not right to say that Governments have proved very capable, especially in the last several years, of analysing and assessing the challenges of a more sustainable farming sector without the need for legislation? For example, is my hon. Friend aware that no fewer than 11—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Michael Ellis]

Forgive me.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should face the Chair when he is speaking. Interventions should be short.

[Michael Ellis]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been 11 reports or initiatives on food, climate change and the environment in the past nine years, and all have been instigated and conducted without the need for legislation.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a YouGov survey has demonstrated that 80% of consumers would buy cheaper meat regardless of whether its production had involved fewer CO₂ emissions? Therefore, because of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, it is impossible for the Secretary of State to prevent the influx of cheap meat. The demand would be there. The motive of the person promoting the Bill may be fine and good, but the Bill will not do what it says on the tin. It will inflict on our industry a huge increase in foreign, cheap meat from Brazil.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions should be short and stick to the point of the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

There is a danger that the Bill will do exactly that, because the more well-off members of our society will be able to afford to pay the premium, while the vast majority—ordinary, working-class members of our society—will simply be prohibited from purchasing higher-priced organic goods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Given what has been said about the Bill by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend, does he acknowledge that it has, in fact, had support from a very wide range of farming organisations that have not been named? They include Farm, the Family Farmers Association, the Small Farms Association, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, the Soil Association and the National Trust—which, I accept, is not a farming organisation, but it has an interest.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be short and contain a question.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I would like an acknowledgement that not only environmental groups but very many farmers organisations are enthusiastically backing this Bill and supporting it all the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I presume that my hon. Friend is moving to the concluding parts of the first stage of his address, but before he does, will he deal with one point? My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is not in his place, but could the geographical issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has just raised possibly apply to overseas territories, given the lack of a clear definition in the Bill? That could create further confusion. Is it not also appropriate at this juncture to point out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One point is enough, and I am sure Gibraltar will not be affected.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to ensure that these policies are consistent at an international level. One would think that the first place to start would be our overseas territories, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) would support that view and ensure that that is where we started, although whether the overseas territories would be that keen on having these burdens imposed on them is another matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that milking dairy cows is only one part of the dairy industry? Farmers also have calves and young stock, and produce beef—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are in danger of going into a general debate. This is not a general debate—we must stick to the Bill.

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We should get back to the point made by the Minister: the Bill will not affect cattle; it will have more of an effect on poultry and pig production.

In my constituency, there are 8,000 poultry producers. Those 8,000 farmers must raise poultry to compete efficiently and effectively with Brazil and other world producers. We export a lot of the poultry to the rest of the United Kingdom and across Europe. Indeed, most of the poultry that hon. Members eat—if they buy it in Marks and Spencer or Tesco—has been raised in my constituency, which is why it is so incredibly tasty. I encourage people to continue to buy it. By buying Moy Park and O’Kane Poultry produce, people are giving a vote of confidence to our local farming traditions. We should be proud of what we purchase and raise on our farms, and recognise that that productivity encourages and sustains jobs in the agri sector. Surely that is in all our interests. If we tamper with that and accept the myth that we are going to save a rain forest, we will lose jobs and end up buying poultry that is in fact produced in places where rain forests have been cleared—in other words, Brazil. That the Bill will stop the import of Brazilian-produced poultry or beef is a myth.

Another myth is that we require this legislation. We do not. It is in the interests of farming to be sustainable and to produce nutritional, clean and traceable food and to convince consumers across the United Kingdom and Europe of that. We therefore do not require legislation, because a good businessman—at the end of the day, farmers are good businessmen—will want to appeal to the marketplace, and the market wants good, clean, traceable and nutritional food. I hope that that produce is also profitable for the farmer.

Yet another myth is that the Bill will do what it says on the tin. It will not. It will do none of the things it says it will do. We need to recognise that even if we endorse the Bill and encourage such legislation, it will not do what it is supposed to do, which is to help our industry.

Let me appeal to the House. We all have different interests, but our key interest is keeping our people in employment. Farming is a key employer in my constituency and my country, and we should encourage, support and sustain it. We should not do anything that would undermine it.