Animal Welfare (Exports)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are now 25 minutes into this debate, when 10 to 15 minutes was expected. The hon. Lady has taken many interventions, but I am sure that she must be coming to a conclusion as she wants to allow other Members to enter the debate.
Badger Cull
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A lot of Members want to get in and interventions will slow us down. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will want to get to the end of her speech very quickly.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s reminding us that farmers are deeply concerned about the matter and feel frustration, but that frustration is because we have had years and years of inaction. Suddenly pulling a badger cull down from the shelf is the wrong way to respond to that frustration. The Government should have gone to the EU and made the case for the DIVA test so that we could get on with vaccination. All the evidence suggests that vaccination, combined with biosecurity, better hygiene and better husbandry, is a much better way of eradicating this horrible disease. No Member is complacent about the seriousness of the disease, but we differ on the most effective way of addressing it. The science is on the side of those who oppose the cull, because it shows that it is not the most effective way forward.
As I said, modern husbandry practices place chronic stress on intensively farmed animals, and a number of scientists are also pointing to the way in which cattle have been inbred for many years as a significant contributor to why cattle do not have the resistance to cope with such a disease.
I want to say a few words about vaccinating badgers. I agree that vaccinating wildlife should be given proper consideration, alongside the vaccination of cattle, yet the coalition Government have slashed funding for the badger vaccine deployment project. Only one of the six original five-year trials to learn how best to address some of the practical difficulties of vaccination is still under way. If those projects had gone ahead as planned, we would have been much further along the road towards finding a solution by now. That is exactly why farmers are frustrated. Instead, two years on, nothing more has been done.
Caroline Lucas
I will not.
That inaccuracy makes it impossible to guarantee that local extinctions will not occur. I welcome the fact that the Government and the NFU have concluded that the pilot culls cannot take place this year. They must now look again at other problems that have been identified, and abandon their culling policy altogether.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. An eight-minute limit on speeches has been imposed, but we want to try and get everybody in. Fewer interventions will ensure that everybody will be able to speak.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If we are to have interventions, they must be short, but those Members who intervene and wish to speak should recognise that they will go to the bottom of the list. That is just a warning for all.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, as we have heard in the debate and in the statement on Tuesday.
Many hon. Members will want to discuss vaccination. I am pleased that, in the west country, there have been efforts to roll out badger vaccination programmes. They seem to have been successful, although it is the very early stages. Many hon. Members will discuss the scientific evidence, which seems to me to be overwhelmingly in support of the notion that badger culling would have a limited impact if any—I believe it says there would be a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years.
However, in the time available, I want to focus on cattle-to-cattle transmission. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) probably misspoke when she said that if every single badger were eradicated, we could eradicate bovine TB—she went on to say that we could not eradicate all badgers and mentioned cattle-to-cattle transmission. In response to a question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in September this year, the Government accepted that about 50% of cases of bovine TB in areas where the randomised badger culling trial took place were attributed to badgers. The other 50% were attributed to cattle-to-cattle transmission. In areas where there is lower incidence, there is a much higher rate of cattle-to-cattle transmission.
It is important to address that point. I was concerned that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not seem to be willing to acknowledge in Tuesday’s statement the very significant role that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays in spreading the disease. Indeed, when he was asked a question about cattle husbandry, he said that the problem was that badgers can get into sheds. He also said that famers grazing cattle in fields cannot prevent badgers from getting to them. That is not what the cattle husbandry issue is about—the Secretary of State was focused totally on badgers, rather than on what happens when cattle spread disease. The fact is that many of the badgers that carry TB are not particularly infectious—[Interruption.] I can cite evidence on that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order, Sir James. I will make the decisions, although it is good of you to offer advice. I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that she has had a good run already; we ought to make sure that everybody else has a chance to express their views.
Sir James Paice
In the limited amount of time that is now available, let me deal with the issue of science. Everyone, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, recognises that Lord Krebs and countless others accept that the randomised badger culling trials showed a 16% reduction. There is a great deal of debate about whether that is sufficient justification, but let us start there.
As has already been said, the study group concluded that culling badgers could “play no meaningful part”, but we thought it necessary to delve deeper into the research and to establish what was behind its conclusions. First, that 16% is a net figure. In the culling zone the gain was more like 30%, but it was offset by the problem of an increase in incidence in the perturbation area outside the zone. Some effort was made to reduce perturbation in the original trials, but it was nothing like the effort that is being imposed on the groups as a condition of their licence applications. If perturbation can be minimised, the net effect will be radically increased, although we do not know by how much because that has not yet been done. Let me stress again, however, that the 16% is a net figure which includes a problem outside the zone, and that that problem can be addressed.
As for the “meaningfulness” conclusion, it relates to the costs incurred by the RBCT. We all know that the trials were hugely expensive, but those are the only figures that we have to work on. We wanted to find a way of carrying out a cull more cheaply. We opted for controlled shooting as the predominant method, although cages would have to be used as well. I remind the House that controlled shooting of foxes, rabbits and, more recently, some species of deer takes place almost daily—or nightly—out in the countryside. To suggest that it is brand new is nonsense.
We addressed those two conclusions, and tried to find ways of achieving the same result through slightly different methods. Let me finally remind the House that these are pilots—
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who moved the motion, has just left her place, but—[Interruption.] I am very sorry; she is still present. In her speech, she barely referred to the current situation. Some 26,000 cattle had to be slaughtered last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) suggests, if the status quo continues, cattle will continue to be slaughtered, and that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Herbert, you should know better. A lot of Members wish to speak. We have asked for short interventions. Please do not make a speech. If you want to speak, you should put your name on the list.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Unfortunately, I am going to have to introduce a five-minute limit to get everybody in. Everybody will get in if we can be disciplined and not take interventions. I call Glyn Davies.
National Policy Statement (Waste Water)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister is being his usual modest self in saying that he was not au fait with the subject. He is now up to his knees, if not his waist, in the subject, having dealt with the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill last week and in introducing this debate. I believe that the Select Committee had some doubt about major projects being included in the NPS. For the avoidance of doubt, are the Government unshaken in their view that projects such as the Thames tunnel and Deephams sewage works should be included in the NPS? Whatever the final decision on the route and the detail, it is important to be clear—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I will make the judgments about the length of interventions, thank you. We want short interventions. I presume that the hon. Gentleman has got to the end of his.
Richard Benyon
I think I got the gist of it. I will come on to cover the key points that were made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and to explain what the waste water national policy statement is. I think that I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I am happy to let him intervene again.
In laying the waste water national policy statement before the House for approval and in having this debate, we are meeting a Government commitment to mirror the new requirements of the Planning Act 2008 that will be brought into effect next month under the Localism Act 2011. Those procedures are intended to make national policy statements more democratically accountable to Parliament.
The Government are committed to making the planning system more open, transparent and fast, and to ensuring that all those who want to get involved in the process can do so, whether it relates to an application to extend a property or to a project of national significance, such as the Thames tunnel. The abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission brings democratic accountability back into the determination of nationally significant infrastructure projects by giving decision-making powers back to Ministers, who are answerable to Parliament. Ministers will also have regard to recommendations made by the Planning Inspectorate.
National policy statements are a key component of a more open and accountable planning system. They will set out Government policy clearly on particular types of infrastructure of national significance, having been subject in draft form to both formal consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. National policy statements provide a framework for preparing, considering and deciding development consent applications. This national policy statement is therefore primarily for planning purposes and does not claim to be a complete statement of Government policy on waste water.
Effective waste water infrastructure is vital, because without suitable treatment, the waste water we produce every day would damage the water environment and create problems for public health, water resources and wildlife. The proper collection, treatment and discharge of waste water, and the correct disposal of the resulting sludge, helps to protect, maintain and improve water quality in the UK.
The criterion that we have used in the national policy statement for the demonstration of the need for nationally significant infrastructure projects is that the projects have been included in the Environment Agency’s national environment programme. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended that that issue needed to be clarified and I believe that our approach now addresses its concerns.
In addition to establishing the need for waste water infrastructure, our national policy statement sets out impacts that will be relevant for any waste water infrastructure, including details on mitigating adverse impacts. Those are issues that the Planning Inspectorate and Ministers will have to have regard to when examining and determining applications.
The national policy statement does not describe how any waste water projects of national significance should be developed. I think that this addresses in part the point made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). How such projects are developed is up to the project promoter before they place an application for development consent, which from April this year will go to the Planning Inspectorate.
The waste water national policy statement details two proposed projects of national significance: the sewage treatment works scheme at Deephams in north-east London and the Thames tunnel. The justification for both developments and the consideration of alternatives to the Thames tunnel are fully explained in the document.
Currently, only the proposed upgrade of the Deephams sewage treatment works can be considered a potential nationally significant infrastructure project, as it meets the criteria in the Planning Act 2008 for waste water treatment facilities serving a population equivalent of 500,000 people. We will shortly lay a draft order before Parliament for its approval, to amend section 14 of that Act to enable a waste water transfer and storage project such as the Thames tunnel to be classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
London’s sewerage is under considerable pressure, due to a system that is close to capacity, changing land use in London and population expansion. That leads to frequent spills of untreated waste water containing sewage into the tidal reaches of the Thames, which has a negative impact on its water quality. Resolving that problem has been the subject of extensive and comprehensive studies, including the consideration of a wide range of alternative solutions, for more than a decade. As a result, the Government are satisfied that the development of the Thames tunnel, when compared with the alternatives, is the most cost-effective and timely solution to the problem of untreated sewage discharging into the River Thames. That is demonstrated in the waste water national policy statement.
Common Fisheries Policy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am going to have to introduce a time limit of 11 minutes, due to the number of Members who wish to speak.
Andrew George
The hon. Lady says that there is no simple solution. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) suggested, either the quota system, which is a blunt instrument, could carry on in its present form, or we could get rid of it and base fishing policy on effort control. The problem with getting rid of it is that quota is marketable and has great value, and I do not think that any Government would want to compensate all those people who have valuable fishing—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can we have shorter interventions? A lot of Members still want to speak, and I would say to anyone who tries to make a speech by means of an intervention that it is not going to happen.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and quite radical suggestion, which brings me to my next point. Perhaps the Minister should consider an independent review of some sort. There are so many different interests involved, and so many ways of trying to move the goalposts and achieve one outcome or another, that I am not sure it is possible for one Minister to act as referee. Perhaps he should consider appointing an arbitrator to conduct an independent review, in order to achieve an outcome on which all the stakeholders could agree.
One proposal on common fisheries policy reform that our report has looked at involves transferrable fishing concessions. My concern, and that of other Members, is reflected in the report. It is that such concessions would not be good for the under-10 metre community. The evidence from other countries is that they have worked against smaller communities, and that the under-10s tend to suffer under them. Those communities tend to lose out in the initial allocation of quota, there is no route for new entrants, and the environmental and social performance is not taken into consideration. Under the present proposals, there is 5% of potential quota allocation for environmental and social performance. I would propose—this is not in the report—that, if we had such a system, there should be a far greater amount allocated to social and environmental performance, which is incredibly important. That would also help to stimulate the under-10 metre communities, which tend to do a lot of social and environmental work locally
The nub of the matter is the question why can we not have a fisheries policy that supports fishing communities? Our current policy has failed—the evidence of that is in our report. Communities find themselves diminished, and the discards continue. We need a new impetus, a new effort and new ideas. Under the new Government, we definitely got the new effort. We began well, by introducing a measure that the smaller, under-10-metre communities had been seeking for a while—namely, a one-off re-allocation of the quota. Obviously, as someone who comes from such a community, I would say that that was not enough, and that it was too conservative, but the Minister will have found, when he embarked on the re-allocation, that he had entered a swamp of divisiveness and infighting between the different interests. The previous Government tried to work with the under-10-metre communities, but they ended up suffering from fishing reform fatigue and gave up on their effort to help. Another great advantage of having a Conservative coalition Government is that we have a new impetus and a new effort. I say to the Minister: keep up the energy and the enthusiasm, so that we can get the reforms that this country so badly needs.
I want to reiterate my concerns about the transferrable fishing concessions. We must not allow them to cement what should be a public resource as a private commodity. When the Committee went down to Hastings and held discussions with both sectors, they acknowledged the need for decommissioning. As hon. Members have said, however, there have been problems with that in the past, even though it was supported by Government money. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) mentioned that the process had had limited success.
In Hastings, we also welcome the support for alternative initiatives. We have been lucky enough to receive £1 million of the £8.7 million put aside under a European initiative involving Fisheries Local Action Groups—FLAGs—to help to support fishermen into new initiatives. I urge fellow Members to come and look at the exciting, adventurous work being done on the Stade in Hastings, where our fishing fleet is, to find alternative methods of employing fishermen and to upgrade their kit and provide new tractors. That is a positive way of trying to help our fishermen into the future.
Above all, when we consider how we can help our fishermen, we need to try carefully to find the balance between satisfying the environmentalists, which we all are, the fishermen who need to continue their lives and the needs of the population who will not accept a system that has so many discards. I am fortunate to come from Hastings, where fishing is so important. It is crucial that my residents in Hastings and Rye know that this issue is taken very seriously. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and the remaining comments from other Members.
Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.”
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
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.
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.”
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(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.