National Pollinator Strategy

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am very pleased to have a chance to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing it. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley). As Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, she has been a pivotal figure on the issue of pollinators and pesticides and a driving force in enabling the Committee to consider these matters.

I welcome the national pollinator strategy, and I am very pleased that the Government have set forward their vision and ambition, but they need to take some of their existing measures further.

The strategy is important for several reasons. It is a tacit acknowledgement that over 20 species of bee have died in the past 100 years or so, and since 1985 the number of honey bees in this country has declined by almost half. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) was the Minister, I asked about the cost of replacing bees with hand pollination. I was grateful that the Government came back with an answer: the university of Reading undertook some research and concluded it would be £1.8 billion—a cost that would fall on consumers.

In addition, the Government have acknowledged that 84% of plant reproduction and 76% of food crop production in Europe depends on pollination by bees. It is clearly, therefore, a very important issue for this country.

I am pleased the Government are concerned about the bee decline. Bees are not only important for food production; they are also important for biodiversity and for their intrinsic value to many of our constituents. A point was made about Friends of the Earth and people having their picture taken next to a bee, and many people in my constituency—in a suburban seat in London—have e-mailed me to tell me how concerned they are about the decline in the bee population.

The NPS also acknowledges that this is not just about bees but about all pollinators—hoverflies, butterflies, moths, beetles—and carrion and flesh flies, which play an important role on many of our country roads in respect of animals that are knocked down. Even mammals such as bats, which are specialised pollinators in their own right, play a role.

The Government also acknowledge that many of us have a role to play. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned local authorities. When I was a cabinet member in and deputy leader of Barnet council, I introduced the policy of bringing the countryside into the city. There were parts of Sunny Hill park that I told contractors not to cut. We took that approach for the simple reason that it would attract hoverflies, butterflies and all the other pollinators that would encourage pollination within Hendon and other parts of my constituency.

The NPS also acknowledges the role of research and review, and commits to more studies to understand the economic and social value of pollinators. I am keen for the Government to continue to do that work. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) mentioned the review of the NPS in 2019, but I wish to draw the House’s attention to the 2013 decision to ban neonicotinoids in Europe. The Government were not keen on that at the time. They said that they would continue to interpret that principle on the basis of both economic and environmental considerations. I hope that they do that and do not override some decisions on the basis of a reliance on commercial rather than scientific research. I do not want the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to abrogate its capacity to deliver on its environmental protection obligations, so I hope that that part of the strategy will continue to be followed.

I wish to mention four areas I would like the Government and the Minister to consider. As has been said, various changes have led to a reduction in pollinators, including the presence of invasive species, climate change, and biodiversity and habitat loss. We can, however, have an immediate effect in one area—planning. I would like the Department for Communities and Local Government to put greater emphasis on taking pollinators into account in its planning guidance. One of the main causes of the decline in pollinators relates to their ability to find food and shelter. There is a lot of poorly planned development in different parts of the country by local authorities and developers that causes further decline, and I want the situation turned around. I am aware that the plan includes some measures to deliver a step change in land management, but I want the Government to give us further clarity on that to illustrate how planning and development can affect habitats that pollinators need and how the current system can better plan for them.

I would also like the Government to consider agriculture itself. I would like to see them assisting farmers to cultivate pollinators. More than 70% of the land in this country is devoted to farming, and what happens on farm land is pivotal to whether bees and pollinators survive and revive. Farmers do what they can—I acknowledge that they do great things to provide pollinators—but I would like to hear what the Government intend to do to provide assistance. The draft NPS is too reliant on voluntary farming measures. Given the historically low take-up of these voluntary measures and low level of adoption of pollinator-specific actions in agri-environment schemes, the Government could go a lot further. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned making CAP reform work for nature, and it would also lay the foundation for the pest management regime.

The Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the integrated pest management scheme. The draft NPS does include measures to promote the pest management scheme to reduce the risks to bees of pesticide use, but it needs to be clearer about what is additional to the existing action and how that will be targeted to help bees. The definition of the IPM in the draft NPS does not refer to reducing pesticide use, yet the EU rules require that priority is to be given to non-chemical methods of pest control. We need a clear ambition to minimise over-dependence on pesticides. If we do not undertake that, the conditions for pollinators are unlikely to change. The IPM can help the UK to move to pesticides being used less, in a smarter, more targeted way, and as a last resort and not as a matter of course. So, again, farmers need more assistance in their approaches to pesticides, particularly in respect of crop pest resistance to insecticides and the NPS overall.

I wish to finish by discussing community partnerships. We all know that many groups and civil organisations are keen to work with the NPS, but I do not want the Government to rely too heavily on voluntary initiatives or outside bodies that have limited accountability lines and then not be able to put across their vision and deliver the aspirational intentions of the NPS. I believe that we can protect our bees and we have an opportunity to do so, but we need to do it in a way that transforms how our communities respond and react to their local environments.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello]

I will work from left to right.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that the rise of the internet has led us to people buying puppies and kittens online, which are certainly being transported around the country? That is where the problem lies, and we need greater regulation.

[Robert Flello]

I do not think that is the only problem. As I will go on to say, that is one of the problems, but not one I am seeking to address today.

Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I thank all the passionate people who have assisted us with our inquiry, including Alistair Gammell, Heather Bradner, Josh Kaile, Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Tim Austin, Croy McCoy, Stuart Mailer, Wayne Panton, Fred Burton, Patricia Bradley, Ian Orr, Jay Esterman and Nick Beech. We are also indebted to many other people.

I would have liked to mention a number of matters —transparency, resources, biodiversity conservation, sustainability and many others—but time will prevent me from doing so. This afternoon, therefore, I will focus on one area, which is good governance, or rather the lack of it.

Many issues covered in the report are not simply to do with environmental policies, but involve standards of governance on the part of the UK Government and Governments in the overseas territories. The remit of the Committee in the report is to hold the UK Government to account for their overall responsibility for the good environmental practices of the overseas territories. When, for example, there is evidence that planning systems in many territories are not open, and that procedures for carrying out objective environmental impact assessments are either ignored or subverted, there is a role for the UK Government, through governors and ministerial engagement with the overseas territories, to encourage and provide support to improve standards of governance.

The result of failure to take early action and to address matters adequately was seen most recently in 2009 in the Turks and Caicos Islands, when the Government had to introduce direct rule. Given that action, it is a great pity that in the initial paragraph of the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, the Government make it clear that they do not regard the report, nor the wealth of evidence presented to them, as in any way worth addressing.

The Government talk of powers being devolved to the Governments of the UK overseas territories, whether the territory has locally elected politicians or Government-appointed officials, including governors and administrators. Through the UK Parliament, certain policy areas have been designated the responsibility of devolved administrations, such as locally elected governments and assemblies. Devolution means that the UK Government no longer have the legal authority to determine policy on some matters in the devolved administrations, except through subsequent parliamentary votes at Westminster. We can see this most notably in local government in the UK. The devolved administrations, which are the councils, are provided with financial resources to carry out work in the devolved areas. There is, however, no such parliamentary devolution to the overseas territories, whether of legal authority or budgetary resources.

The crucial concept for the UK overseas territories is not devolution. Indeed, that term does not appear in the index to Hendry and Dickson’s authoritative “British Overseas Territories Law” of 2011. The key constitutional concept is that of reserved powers, which are, uniformly, defence, foreign affairs and public order. As the same index reveals, however, a key non-parliamentary constitutional concept is that of the Government’s reserved general power to legislate by Order in Council.

Even if the constitutions of individual overseas territories have been modernised in certain respects during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, they still rely on colonial legal structures developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and on the ability to govern by exercising the royal prerogative through Orders in Council. Constitutionally, the good governance of the territories is the responsibility of the UK Government.

The Government decide how to secure such good governance through departmental, ministerial and bureaucratic decisions. Generally, for territories with locally elected Governments, it is desirable for that to be achieved through local legislation, which takes account of local conditions, but respects standards that are often formulated to be observed in all territories over which the UK exercises effective sovereignty. Where Ministers deem it necessary, however, Orders in Council, without parliamentary debate in either the territory or the Westminster legislatures, can be used to impose new laws, including the suspension of a territory’s constitution.

Let me be clear: I am in no way opposed to proper delegation to the UK overseas territories, but as I said a few minutes ago, the Government’s arrangements do not achieve that, and they certainly do not justify the Government’s repeated attempts to claim that they have no responsibility for environmental issues in the overseas territories.

The Government assert in their response that it would be inappropriate to take greater ownership of environmental issues, as that approach would be in stark contrast to the objective, set out in the 2012 White Paper, of working in partnership with the territories to help them meet their environmental obligations. The idea of working in partnership, however, was set out in the 2001 environment charters, in which both sides made commitments that reflected their differentiated responsibilities for environmental good governance. The Government’s comment is in conflict with the Environmental Audit Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee reports of 2008, as well as our present report.

It needs to be clearly stated that there is no suggestion that the Government should take over managing environmental issues in the overseas territories, but the Government should introduce support for proper management. It is all very well for them to assert that they encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements, but the Government undermine their own assertion by making the erroneous comment that

“we have no intention of imposing on the Territories obligations that they are ill-equipped to fulfil.”

That is an attempt to set up an informal fallacy. The role of the UK, as recognised in the standard environment charters, is not to impose obligations, but to

“Facilitate the extension of the UK’s ratification of Multilateral Environmental Agreements of benefit to [the territory] and which [the territory] has the capacity to implement”,

and to

“Keep [the territory] informed regarding new developments in relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements and invite [the territory] to participate where appropriate in the UK’s delegation to international environmental negotiations and conferences.”

The Government response to the Committee’s report also ignores international responsibility to help equip parts of sovereign UK territory to fulfil such commitments. Imposing treaties on unwilling UK overseas territories is not something that the Government have shied away from—we need only consider the case of the Turks and Caicos Islands in 2009, and the fiscal and financial framework in the Cayman Islands a couple of years ago. There is, however, a middle course between imposition and a purely reactive response to requests from UK overseas territories, as the Government have developed mechanisms to seek the changes needed in overseas territories—that is, to encourage and to assist.

In general, treaties that the UK ratifies reflect values and priorities that apply to all sovereign UK territory. If that is not the case, will the Minister provide examples of environmental treaties that it would be wrong in principle to extend to all or some UK overseas territories, although they are appropriate to the UK mainland? The core obligations under the convention on biological diversity are not onerous. Having legislation to create protected areas is fundamental, but effective implementation is also important.

In all countries and territories where the convention on biological diversity has been ratified, or to which a mainland country’s ratification has been extended, a great deal has been left to be put in place after that ratification or extension. Judged by some standards—when it comes, for example, to the creation of marine protected areas—the UK has not been a leader in meeting its CBD commitments. It therefore seems perverse to demand higher standards before extension to many of our overseas territories when they are specifically excluded from policy discussions and treaty negotiations. It would not have impressed the other states with whom the CBD was being negotiated had the UK announced, on ratification in 1992, that it was likely that 22 years later it would still be unable to extend the CBD’s principles to most of the UK overseas territories, including those with no residents.

The Government state that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face resource and capacity constraints affecting their ability to consider or implement treaties. Although I can accept that view, will the Minister explain why the UK Government have not provided more resources to address those constraints—for example, staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, assistance in an environmental drafting capacity, or any other form of help? If the Minister believes that multilateral environmental agreements have no value when applied to areas of high biodiversity, will he argue his case in public for not extending such treaties to those areas, and for devoting large sums of UK taxpayers’ money to biodiversity on the UK mainland?

As a consequence of the inquiry, some overseas territories have introduced conservation measures and legislation; that is an achievement of the Committee, but I must ask why the UK Government are prepared to exercise hard and soft power in the UK overseas territories on financial matters, but not protect biodiversity and promote environmental sustainability.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot abnegate its constitutional responsibility to ensure that good governance arrangements are introduced in the UK overseas territories. Sustainable development in the territories is contingent on their Governments’ implementing effective development controls, such as statutory environmental impact assessments for major developments and strategic infrastructure plans.

I urge the Government to consider investing to prevent biodiversity loss in the overseas territories, as it would make a direct and cost-effective contribution to meeting the UK’s international commitments under the CBD. The UK could make a significant contribution to achieving Aichi biodiversity target 11 by declaring new marine protected areas around the Pitcairn Islands, Tristan da Cunha, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government have missed a significant opportunity in their response to the Committee’s report, but there is still time to take the action we have set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There is, and I will come back to that point, because I want to talk about some of the international aspects.

The second issue that I want to touch on is that of staff, because several hon. Members have suggested that DEFRA has no one dedicated to this subject. In fact, there are four DEFRA staff working on overseas territories issues, and they include the head of our international biodiversity policy unit. The report suggested that there should be more visits by DEFRA staff to the overseas territories. I am sure that there would be no shortage of volunteers to undertake those visits to see the wonderful specimens of wildlife that we have there, but I question the value of spending money on air fares when we could be spending money on projects that will deliver and will enhance the biodiversity of these areas. Also, not carrying out physical visits to these areas does not mean that they are not in regular contact with their counterparts in the territories. They certainly are. For instance, earlier this week we were speaking to officials from Tristan da Cunha about the islands’ biosecurity needs and the exciting news that a new bird species may have been identified on one of the islands. I am told that it is a prion and similar to a kiwi. We await peer review of that new discovery.

We also organise workshops and training for the territories. For example, in March, officials organised a practical workshop on how to implement the convention on international trade in endangered species. It brought territory officials together with representatives from DEFRA, the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the JNCC, Kew gardens, Border Force and the Government Legal Service. We also offer access to expertise and a range of services, including a plant pest identification service provided through the Food and Environment Research Agency which helps to protect both biodiversity and agriculture in the territories. That service has helped the territories to put in place measures to combat invasive invertebrate pests, and has to date identified 16 species new to science.

There is also, of course, regular discussion at ministerial level. We have the Joint Ministerial Council, which brings together UK Ministers and territory leaders and representatives and is organised collaboratively. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that we should prioritise greater involvement of the territories in setting the agenda for those meetings, but I assure hon. Members that we already do that. We already have regular meetings with the UK-based representatives of the territory Governments in the run-up to Joint Ministerial Council meetings and, following discussions with them, we held Minister-led plenary sessions on the environment in 2012 and on renewable energy in 2013. Responding to specific territory requests, we also held in 2013 a technical discussion in which territory representatives were able to speak to UK experts on a range of environmental issues.

International agreements were mentioned by a number of speakers. As the Select Committee rightly pointed out, protection of the environments of the territories is relevant to the goals and targets set out in the convention on biological diversity’s strategic plan, which 193 countries around the world, including the UK, have already committed to implementing. As the Committee also pointed out, the convention has so far been extended only to four of the UK’s 14 overseas territories.

The Government recognise that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face capacity constraints, which may affect their ability to consider or implement treaties. In such circumstances, we do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the territories, the UK or the wider environment to impose on the territories obligations that they are ill equipped to fulfil. We do, however, encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements. That includes working with them to ensure that they have the necessary measures in place to fulfil their obligations, providing technical advice and building capacity before extension of ratification takes place. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made clear, the Select Committee recommended that the CBD be extended to other overseas territories. Although we believe that that is a matter for the territories themselves, I am pleased to be able to inform hon. Members today that my officials are currently working with a further three territories on just such an extension of the CBD.

Funding is important. The Committee’s own report acknowledged that DEFRA spending on the UK overseas territories has increased since 2007-08, and increased sixfold between 2010-11 and 2012-13. We do that mainly through mechanisms such as Darwin Plus. That cross-Government grant scheme, co-funded by DEFRA, the FCO and the Department for International Development, funds environmental projects in many of the territories. In the past two years, Darwin Plus has committed nearly £3.7 million to 29 projects in the territories. Returning to the issue of international agreements, it is important to note that in many cases the grants that are offered help to deliver and advance the objectives that were set out by the territories in the environmental charters, when those were put together and agreed on in 2001.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at such short notice. In the Cayman Islands, there is a conservation fund, which comes from a tax levied on people when they leave the islands. That has allowed a pot of money—£40 million—to accumulate, but the authorities are not able to spend it, because there are not governance arrangements in effect. Does the Minister think it wise to be spending UK taxpayers’ money overseas when they already have their own resources but they do not have the governance measures to allow them to spend it?

[George Eustice]

I was going to come on to the issue of the Cayman Islands. I am not familiar with the particular point that my hon. Friend has raised, but, consistent with the charters, I am able to say that, with UK Government support, the Cayman Islands’ long-awaited National Conservation Bill was passed on 13 December 2013. The law will, for the first time, give legal protection to Cayman’s unique and diverse land and marine-based natural resources. Although this is a delegated area of responsibility, the UK Government provided political support for the passing of the law, including through visits by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke about marine protected areas. The Government have been enthusiastic supporters of MPAs, having established the largest no-take MPA in the world in the British Indian Ocean Territory in 2010. We have also established a 1 million sq km sustainable use MPA around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, 20,000 sq km of which is a no-take zone. I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that in 2009 the UK provided the science that underpinned the declaration of the first Antarctic marine protected area.

I want to mention a couple of other points that were raised. One was about EU funding and LIFE+. I can confirm that the Government worked with NGOs to allow that European fund to be used on these projects, and we continue to work with them on that. An issue relating to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was raised. On that, one of the obstacles is that, in some of these countries, gambling is illegal. Nevertheless, certain organisations can already claim money.

We are running out of time, but let me say in conclusion that I think we have had a very good debate. I hope that I have managed to persuade hon. Members about our commitment to these issues, and we will be publishing on Monday—

Bovine TB

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

That rather depends on what the protesters do. If the countryside were inhabited only by responsible country people, who are very concerned about TB, the policing costs would be very low. I totally respect democracy. We all have different views, and I totally respect people’s right to protest, but if we have an invasion of protesters who try to stop the democratic Government’s disease control policy by using measures that cross the border from legitimate democratic protest into active disruption, the policing costs will become significant.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

When did the Secretary of State last discuss the timetable for establishing a legal, validated cattle vaccine with the European Commission?

[Mr Paterson]

I saw the commissioner on the Monday a fortnight ago—the first day I came back.

Flooding

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong. We are going to spend £2.3 billion over the course of this Parliament. The scheme he mentions may be a good candidate for partnership funding, which has helped get a whole number of schemes that were stuck beforehand over the barrier because they depended entirely on Environment Agency funding.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and congratulate him on his energetic performance over the Christmas period, when I saw him here and on our television screens informing the public. Does he agree that he saw a lot of surface water on his travels, and will he assure me and the House that he will have conversations with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities are playing their part in clearing culverts to ensure that standing water on roads does not contribute to the worsening floods?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. DCLG Ministers obviously played a key part in our Cobra meetings, and liaison with relevant local councils was discussed almost on a daily basis. That is a key local government responsibility that has been pursued with vigour by Ministers at the centre.

Fisheries

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheryll Murray]

I completely share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

On the CFP review of regional management, although a sea basin approach is welcome, we must all remember that it will be for a limited period, because article 6(1) of the new regulation states that Union vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters. In his bid to secure legitimate sea basin management, has the Minister explored the deletion of that article from the proposal?

On the 12-mile limit, I am delighted that the European Parliament and the Council have adopted a regulation to extend the arrangements for a further two years, thus avoiding a repetition of the situation that arose in January 1983 and the subsequent case of Regina v. Kirk in the European Court of Justice. The Labour party claimed in 2002 that it had secured a roll-over of the 12-mile limit, but that was untrue. According to article 100 of our act of accession, the original agreement referred to the position as on 31 January 1971. That position, which was set out in the London convention of 1964, remained until the present 2002 regulation, in which it was changed. Fishermen from specific member states are now allowed access to specific areas for specific stocks, as is set out in an annexe to the regulation. I hope that the Opposition will apologise to UK fishermen for that error.

The restriction of access to member states within a certain band could help our fishermen using small—under 10 metre—vessels, who are struggling with their quota share. Action on that matter was yet another failure by the Labour party. Please will the Minister take soundings over the next two years to secure a better deal on access to our 12-mile limit? Newer member states do not have such shared access.

I understand the industry’s concern about how a discard ban would affect it, but I believe that the discarding of marketable fish is a wicked waste of healthy protein. I have often raised the matter of small gurnards, which are fished off my constituency, and I am delighted to inform hon. Members that one of my fish merchants is now using them as an ingredient in the Lipsmacking Liskeard pies range. The fish version is the Shipwreck pie, which is quite delicious. I certainly recommend that hon. Members try it should they ever happen to be passing through Liskeard.

Some of my fishermen are very worried about the implications of marine protected areas. Although I acknowledge that Natura 2000 sites cannot take account of socio-economics, the MPAs that the Minister will designate under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 can do so. Will the Minister reassure me that any consultation on the selected sites, which he is due to announce, will allow leisure and commercial fishermen to put their case should they feel disadvantaged?

I want to mention an MPA that has been the subject of a case in the European Court of Justice relating to Spain and the southern Gibraltar waters. Having declared an MPA in the southern Gibraltar territorial waters, the UK registered it with the European Commission, but Spain has contested those waters. Indeed, Spain included them in its own, much larger MPA, which it has registered with the Commission.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend obviously speaks about this subject with a great deal of experience. She mentioned socio-economic considerations of marine conservation areas and marine protected areas. Does she agree that such areas also provide an opportunity for additional benefits, such as tourism? I am particularly thinking of the sinking of the Scylla near her constituency, and the economic benefits that that has brought.

[Sheryll Murray]

One of our problems with the proposed MPA there is that a lot of dredged silt is being dumped in a disposal ground close to the Scylla. I know that the Minister has visited my constituency and seen that for himself.

The European Court of Justice has confirmed that the Spanish action was legal, but it should be noted that one of the judges on the appeal panel was a Spanish national. Although I do not expect the Minster to respond on that subject today, will he write to me to say what his Department or the Foreign Office now intends to do? I admire his work for our fishermen at this important time, but I fear the outcome will not be as positive as they want, or as they—let alone the fish stocks—deserve.

We are constrained by the principle of equal access to a common resource, but I want to remind the Minister of the words of some of his predecessors when they held shadow posts. In November 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) told the House:

“We should follow the example of those countries that have had the courage to take control of their own fisheries policies.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 825.]

On 2 December 2004, the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who then held the shadow fisheries post, said:

“The CFP is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster. It is our clearly stated policy to leave the CFP and establish national and local control.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 836.]

He even published a Green Paper on how fisheries would be managed within the UK 200- mile limit or the median line. Finally, on 7 December 2005, he told the House that

“my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that he ‘would reverse EU control of fisheries policy and withdraw from employment and social policies.’ On numerous occasions during the campaign, my hon. Friend stressed employment and social policies—and my word, fishing certainly comes into that category.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 888.]

If the Minister cannot secure real, permanent change to fisheries policy during the review of the CFP, will he takes steps to persuade my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to take back national control over our 200-mile limit? Indeed, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) could show him the way, through the Bill he presented some years ago, which British fishermen still applaud today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called in the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing the debate.

Many Members here today wish to speak about the fishing industry because of constituency interests, so it could be asked: what am I, as a London MP, doing also asking questions? The answer is simple. Many of my constituents eat fish, just like the father of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright)—I, too, wish him a happy birthday. Also, as I grew up in Cornwall and around the coast, I am particularly interested in the sea. I challenge anyone here who has not done so to read Rachel Carson’s “The Sea Around Us”, and to marvel at the majesty of the oceans, as described there. I also challenge anyone who disputes the environmental degradation of the sea to read one of Callum Roberts’s books, and to learn for themselves about the problems that the sea, the wider ecosystem and the environmental community face. I make no apology for drawing heavily on both those conservationists. I believe that my plagiarism is just a testament to their ideas—ideas that we, as decision makers, should consider.

I would like the Minister to consider several things as part of the UK’s fishing policy. I have some ideas that might increase the sustainability of fish stocks and the biodiversity of species, their habitats and changes in the food web structure on our coasts. I believe that we should reduce the amount of fishing. We cannot say that we were not warned about this issue many times, many years ago. As long ago as 1948, in his “Rational fishing of the cod of the North Sea”, Michael Graham noted that

“the properties of an over-fished stock are such that all attempts at improvement will be unsuccessful so long as there is not some limitation of the total fishing power expended per annum, involving fishing by all nations.”

Where there is no restriction on access, people will pile into the industry all the while there are profits to be made.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that coastal communities disproportionately rely on fishing jobs, and that we should not only be considering the conservation of fish stocks but taking into account the conservation of fishermen?

[Dr Offord]

Having grown up in Cornwall and having conducted my PhD research on economic development in the county, I certainly agree. The local authority in Cornwall has a great role to play in that, but it is not currently doing so. Agriculture and fisheries are concerns in Cornwall, and those concerns are not being addressed, so I do agree with my hon. Friend.

Under the common fisheries policy, countries have had their access limited, but fishing capacity can still increase to excessive levels because of technological innovation. A decade ago it was estimated that the fishing fleet in the North sea was already 40% larger than was sustainable, so it is understandable that one of the CFP’s main thrusts is to decommission vessels. In October, I asked the Minister about the Government’s policy on the decommissioning of fishing vessels and he advised me that decommissioning was not a policy of this Government. It was, however, Government policy back in the 1930s, particularly regarding the herring fishing fleet.

I accept that decommissioning is not a panacea for the fishing industry’s problems. The first to sell up are usually those who have the worst fishing records and those with the oldest boats. In practical terms, the owners of the large fishing fleets will often sell their oldest vessels and put the money into buying new ships and fleets, and they will also put the money into fishing gear and electronics. That is, therefore, only one step that we should take, but I ask the Minister to consider it.

I also ask the Minister to consider the elimination of what I call risk-prone decision making. What I mean by that is that we should take elected politicians out of the decision-making process.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

indicated assent.

[Dr Offord]

The Minister nods in approval, but I hope he understands my rationale.

The time scales of politics and fishery management are as distinct as beef and mackerel. The two things exist in completely different time frames. Ministers and politicians usually exist in very short time frames, and the decisions taken by fisheries Ministers are often not felt for at least five or 10 years, which is usually one or even two parliamentary terms and fisheries Ministers later. We have, therefore, Ministers who end up picking up the pieces of previous poor decisions.

I would also like to consider the elimination of catch quotas, and instead to implement controls on the amount of fishing. The intention would be to replace catch quotas with limits on fishing efforts that would help the fishing industry. Landing quotas do not stop fish being killed, legally at least. By limiting fishing effort, the Government can prevent fish stocks from being killed, and allow them to live longer and produce more offspring.

[Andrew George]

I do not want this to become a Cornish debate between Cornish Members, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to present a polarisation between fishermen and environmentalists he has perhaps misunderstood the issue. Increasingly these days fishermen are working with scientists, and the way forward is to encourage them to work together towards a sustainable fishing industry. It is not that fishermen want to fish the seas out; they are interested in a sustainable fishing industry for the future.

[Dr Offord]

I am obviously giving that impression, but I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not my intention. I do not believe that that is what fishermen in this country do. Hopefully, I will provide that reassurance as I make several more points.

A fourth reform that I would like to see, and which has been mentioned already, is to require fishermen to keep what they catch, as occurs in countries such as Norway. We all agree that discarding fish is a tragic waste. Most of the fish that are caught are dead when they are returned to the sea, so even when we comply with quotas nothing is achieved, because all we do is throw back dead fish. For years, EU regulators insisted that vessels should throw back over-quotas because otherwise over-catching would be rewarded.

I believe, and I hope that this point provides some reassurance, that such a reform could be a powerful conservation measure. If we provide and enforce limits on fishing effort, the proposal will work, because different catches are worth different amounts, depending on size and on the species caught. Crews become more selective, choosing the target species that make them more money, and they also supply low-value catch species for other uses such as fishmeal or, as we have heard, stargazy pie. Methods that allow greater selectivity include modifying fishing gear and choosing fishing grounds more selectively, and the reform would become an economic incentive, achieved through best practice.

I would also like the Minister to consider requiring fishermen to use gear modified to reduce by-catch. For years, Government laboratories have shown that they have designed such gear, but experience shows that the industry is reluctant to change its gear because of the financial implications, and possibly because the new gear could reduce the total catch. The only way to enforce such a change would be through legislation.

I would also like the Minister to comment on banning or restricting the most damaging catching methods. Some fishing gear causes untold environmental damage. Bottom trawl nets crush and sever bottom-living species. Gear used to trawl in deep water is heavier than that used in shallower water. The heavy steel rollers on the ground rope and the 5-tonne plates that hold the net open cause irreparable damage but the practice does not have to be universally banned. Large expanses of shallow-water continental shelf are dominated by gravel, sand and mud, which is perfect for trawling, and repeated trawling actually favours some communities of animals and plants that are resilient to its effect. Farmers plough their fields, but not every single year, and the same could occur in parts of the ocean. I have no problem with trawling, but I believe that we should establish how often it can occur.

Finally, I would like the Minister to consider implementing extensive networks of marine reserves that are off limits to fishing. We have already heard one Member’s concerns about the economic conditions. Earlier today, I heard the Minister speak about the number of conservation areas that are being considered. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said that she would like to see those that are rejected replaced by others. I would like to see the number increased. The total number of 127 represents only 27% of the UK’s coastline. This could be an economic opportunity, rather than a problem for fishermen.

I am a great supporter of the fishing industry, and I want it to continue to be profitable, vibrant and safe. Many Members have mentioned the terrible health and safety record in the industry, which is due to the very dangerous nature of fishing. I would also like to see the opportunity to improve the fish stocks in this country, and we can do that unilaterally, away from the European Union and not as part of the CFP. I believe that it is possible to achieve those ends.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Lady will understand that I am not privy to what is in the Queen’s Speech. I very much want a water Bill as soon as possible, but we have given a commitment that the Bill will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny, and that is not something that happens overnight—it requires a process and it would be tight to get in the full level of pre-legislative scrutiny and a Bill in the next Session. However, I accept her point that it is needed by many people as quickly as possible.

We know that some households in the south-west and other regions—let me reiterate that other regions are also affected—struggle with their water and sewerage charges. We will soon be issuing guidance that will allow for the development of company social tariffs. Water companies will be able to reduce the charges of customers who would otherwise have difficulty paying in full. In consultation with their customers, companies will decide who needs help in their area and then design local solutions to address local circumstances. Water companies know their customers and local circumstances. Companies vary in size and customer base, and average bills also vary from company to company. On Second Reading, Members spoke about the different kinds of affordability problems faced by their constituents. They also recognised that in some parts of the country there might be less scope than in others for customers to cross-subsidise others in the region. I urge hon. Members to consider the Cholderton company, which serves only about 2,000 people. The difficulty of having a nationally mandated tariff that would apply to that company as well as to Thames Water, which has several million customers, accentuates the problem.

Imposing one-size-fits-all standards, as new clause 1 would require, on companies that decide to develop social tariffs would prevent them from reflecting the circumstances of their customer base and what their customers want. Some companies might be less likely to introduce social tariffs if the model did not suit their local circumstances. If hon. Members intend that all private water companies should be forced to introduce a centrally imposed social tariff scheme, I cannot support the introduction of that regulatory burden.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State said that she did not wish to take the credit for some of the amendments because they were the initiative of Ofwat. Having looked through Ofwat’s response to DEFRA’s consultation on company social tariffs, I think the amendments all came from Ofwat, apart from the question of what concessions to offer. Ofwat says that it supports the view in the draft guidance that it is preferable that the companies themselves should design concessions that best suit their customers’ needs. It says this so that companies, rather than the Government, will have greater scope to innovate, which I think the Minister is saying too.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It shows when one prays in aid an organisation, one has to do so in the context of all the evidence that has been given by it to many organisations, not least a Select Committee of the House.

We want companies to be imaginative in the way they tackle affordability in their areas, not to force them into a straitjacket. Our guidance will not dictate eligibility criteria, the level of concession or the amount of cross-subsidy. It will give companies the freedom to make judgments, with their customers, on what can work in their areas. This addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). Social tariffs are a new tool in the tool-kit for companies, but they are not the only tool. Companies have many other effective tools—for example, win-win tariffs, which are self-funding from savings on bad debt and do not rely on cross-subsidies. They have trust funds, as has been mentioned, which are set up by the company to pay off the debts of those most in need, as well as payment plans and referrals to holistic debt agencies such as Citizens Advice, arrangements made locally that really work.

We must not see a social tariff as the only show in town. There are no state secrets here. The information from water companies about the social tariffs that they develop will be produced in negotiation with DEFRA, working on the guidance that we will publish in a few weeks. The proposals from the water companies and the decisions that DEFRA makes will be available for scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

There is a serious danger of many Members agreeing with each other here, which will not do the House’s reputation any good at all. [Interruption.] It will not do the reputation of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) or mine any good at all, either. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not wish to exaggerate by saying that quality of the water in the Thames is heading back to what it was in the 19th century. It is not, but it is deteriorating because of the amount of effluent being pushed into it and because the sewerage system cannot cope. Ergo, something clearly has to be done.

I have discussed this issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). As I see it, the Thames tunnel is a solution and it is necessary. My concern is with the cost and the impact; I am also concerned about whether the solution will last. That is why I hope that the Minister will inform us, when he comes to reply, that his Department is seriously looking at other issues, such as permeable surfaces, reducing the use of water, using other forms of drainage that do not pump everything down towards the Thames, and perhaps other forms of sewage disposal that will not lead another generation to have to spend an equally large amount of money on the next new solution to this problem.

I recognise that we have a problem; I recognise that London has to wake up to it. I believe that the Thames tunnel is probably the only solution on offer to deal with it. We have to look ahead as well, just as Parliament was forced to face up to the pollution in the river in the 19th century when it stank Members out of the building. We are not at that stage yet, but Londoners deserve a decent and clean river of which they can be proud. We look forward to the days when the salmon and dolphins are back in the Thames, as they could, should and ought to be.

[Mr Offord]

I shall comment on the proposals of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Some of his comments were interesting and opened me up to some of his concerns, which are shared by some Conservative Members. I shall investigate some further issues afterwards, but I wish to put some comments on the record now.

I am a supporter of the Thames tunnel. I do not think I am considered a spendthrift politician. I am often described as a right-wing Conservative—a moniker with which I am very comfortable. On this occasion, however, I am supporting Thames Water in its endeavours to clean up the river.

I am most concerned about amendment 4, proposed by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, according to which financial assistance should be given for “the financing the infrastructure” only if

“secured by a group company which has adopted the equator principles.”

I was not initially aware of what the equator principles were, so I went away to conduct a little research.

The equator principles were established to guide investment for major works and projects in developing countries, particularly those countries that have a limited environmental regulatory framework. Although they are now described as applying to all major projects across the country, the relevant environmental directives here in the UK set much higher standards than anything that appears in the equator principles.

Applications for projects on the scale of the Thames tunnel will be considered by an independent body—in this case, the Infrastructure Planning Commission. I understand that back in September 2010, Thames Water referred the matter back to the IPC. Beyond that, I understand that after investigation, the Secretary of State will be required to look at the project to establish whether it is acceptable; that will be followed by acceptance or rejection by Parliament.

The scale and the nature of the Thames tunnel project has triggered the need to undertake an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the EU EIA directive and the EIA regulations. The EIA process will seek to identify the likely significant effects of the project, which we hope will inform part of the design process and facilitate design improvements, ultimately identifying suitable mitigation measures for any residual environmental and social effects on our constituents. The output of the EIA process—the environmental statement—will convey to decision makers, such as ourselves, the environmental effects of the project, including on local communities.

Other studies have been undertaken that will inform the independent decision makers during the IPC process, including an equalities impact assessment, a health impact assessment and a sustainability assessment. In addition, as we all know, local authorities will be able to make their case directly to the IPC, and they will be able to produce their own local impact statements. Finally, the extensive consultations undertaken by Thames Water comply fully with the Planning Act 2008 and are in line with the Aarhus convention.

It is certainly my view—and I believe it is the view of Thames Water, which is proposing the scheme—that the directives and guidelines are being complied with to an extent that far exceeds the requirements of the equator principles, and I am particularly uncomfortable with that. I am disappointed that the amendment will not be pressed to the vote. I feel that when amendments have been tabled, we should test the view of the Committee on them. I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark tabled this amendment. I would have thought that he had done enough work to be able to speak eloquently about his other concerns. I do not think that he really believes in this measure, which rather muddies the water generally.

The second part of my speech is about the Chris Binnie meeting, which I attended. I was quite surprised to hear that the person who promoted the original plan had decided, after seven or so years, that he felt an alternative was more viable. The viability of the scheme, he said, lay in the fact that it would cost only £60 million as compared with the £4.1 billion he originally envisaged. What he did not address in the meeting, however, was the fact that the £60 million scheme would not fundamentally address the problem of sewage and other contaminants in the river. All it would do is scrape some of the 39 million tonnes of effluent off the top of the Thames and aerate some of the river, affecting fish and livestock living in it. It does not address some of the issues in the EU environmental legislation that we need to address fundamentally as part of the super-sewer scheme.

I was rather concerned to hear that someone who had proposed a scheme only seven years ago had suddenly changed his mind. I felt that some of these aspects should have been considered seven years ago. He said that circumstances, including the financial situation in which the country and Government find themselves, had changed. That reminded me of an old African proverb—that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, and the second best time is now. I ask myself why he did not push this scheme forward at the time. We have had to wait seven years and he now claims that it is unaffordable. I am very suspicious of people who come forward with a professional opinion and then, when circumstances change, decide that better alternatives could have been proposed. In hindsight, it would have been better if he had advocated these proposals originally.

I do not believe that the amendment will be pressed to a vote. If it were, for the reasons I have outlined, I would certainly be against it. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer—certainly not for as long as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark did. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the points that have been raised.

[Gavin Shuker]

The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) raises a number of important issues through these amendments. In so doing, I believe he makes our case, which we will come on to discuss in the next group of amendments, for proper parliamentary scrutiny in the exercise of clause 2. However, we take a different view on the correct mechanism in this case. We believe that rather than attempting to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State—despite the rather ingenious way in which he has crafted the amendments—the best way to debate major infrastructure works is through a statutory instrument process, before triggering the powers in clause 2. Because we believe that our amendment provides a superior mechanism, we are reluctant to support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments, although I accept that he has already said that they are, to a degree, intended to probe the Government’s position.

I admit that I was a little confused about the right hon. Gentleman’s own position. Last week he said that he was no longer convinced of the arguments in favour of the Thames tunnel, and I hope that the amendments are not designed to allow him to sit on the fence. In view of climate projections that forecast a substantial increase in the number of flash floods in the region—it is expected that by 2060 the UK’s current single occurrence in 30 years will become one in 11, and that the current single occurrence in 100 years will become one in 30—we think that the need for the tunnel is obvious.

We do, however, agree that the scheme could be accompanied by a number of other measures. It should be borne in mind that the Thames tunnel will still be overwhelmed by large storms occurring perhaps every three months. That demonstrates that the design is not over-engineered, as some would claim, but provides a decent standard of protection for the Thames.

The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he does not intend to press his amendments to the vote. I invite him to support our amendment 2 later, when these points can be properly addressed.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In London, there is a real need for improvement to the sewerage system. The present network of major sewers was designed for a 19th century city. London’s population is now 7.6 million, but it is projected to rise to 8.3 million by 2021 and to 8.8 million by 2031. It will then have doubled since the major sewers were built. It is remarkable that the system has managed so well for so long, and is a tribute to Bazalgette and the others who designed and built it. It is, however, clearly inadequate, and has been so for some time.

The present system consists of combined sewers, which convey foul sewage and rainwater run-off to the sewage treatment works before they are discharged. When the combined sewers reach capacity, the combined sewer overflows—CSOs—are designed to discharge excess untreated waste water into the River Thames. This avoids overflows and back-ups through manholes and into individual properties, but it means that as soon as the hydraulic capacity of the sewage treatment works is exceeded, sewage is pumped directly into the Thames. In fact, some parts of London, including my constituency, also have a problem with sewage back-up, and the Counters Creek relief scheme that Thames Water is seeking to implement will bring an end to that appalling problem, which has affected thousands of my constituents over the past few years. It happened three times in four years during the latter part of the last decade. I welcome the implementation of the Counters Creek relief scheme—a major scheme across west London—but the result will be even more sewage going into the Thames. The river will continue to bear the brunt.

Discharges can occur following as little as 2 mm of rain; they happen approximately 60 times a year. The Thames is tidal between Hammersmith and Beckton, and when CSOs discharge, the resulting sewage and litter flows up and down the river with the tide. In winter, it takes about a month for non-biodegradable waste to get from the head of the estuary at Teddington to the sea. In summer, when water levels are lower, it can take up to three months. It is in summer that we get the worst response and the worst smells.

In future, sewage might flow into the Thames even on dry days unless the situation is managed. In any typical year, 39 million cubic metres of untreated waste water—a mixture of sewage and rainwater—are discharged. The frequency and volume of untreated waste water entering the tidal reaches of the Thames have increased, and will only increase further. This level of waste entering the environment is not tolerated anywhere else in the UK, and it should not be flowing into the main river of our capital city. Something clearly needs to be done.

The discharges affect the river in several ways. First, polluted water increases health risks to recreational users of the Thames, whose numbers I am pleased to say are increasing year on year. Secondly, the aesthetic impact of CSO discharges is offensive. Materials such as faeces, toilet paper, wipes, sanitary products and other “flushable” items, including hypodermic needles, regularly end up in the Thames at Hammersmith. All of this causes slicks of pollution to float on the river before being washed up on the foreshore. Thirdly, sewage discharges harm the ecology of the river by reducing dissolved oxygen levels in the water. In extreme events, this can result in the death of fish and other wildlife, often in large numbers. There are therefore strong environmental, health and economic cases for the Thames tunnel.

The Thames tunnel will work with the existing system of sewers, with improved sewage treatment works and with the Lee tunnel to reduce the frequency of CSO discharges. This Government and the previous one have conducted serious studies of the issues behind the tunnel. Investigations have been carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and by independent bodies, resulting in the 2007 regulatory impact assessment, the Thames tunnel needs report, and DEFRA’s 2011 strategic and economic case for the Thames tunnel. They all conclude that the tunnel is the most comprehensive solution available at the most proportionate cost.

A number of alternatives have been suggested. The first is that we have a system to mitigate and reduce the dissolved oxygen levels in the Thames. This involves using the so-called Thames Bubbler oxygenation craft, as well as hydrogen peroxide dosing. This has helped with fish mortality in some places, but it is not sustainable; neither is it a complete solution and neither will it work in a tidal river.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech. Does he agree that the Bubbler and the sustainable drainage system will not remove things like heavy metals, pesticides and all the other contaminants that go into the river through the CSO system he describes?

[Mr Slaughter]

That is absolutely right; it is a sticking plaster approach. I have reservations about the tunnel, which I shall come on to, but I am making the case that the tunnel is the only sensible solution thought of so far because many alternatives have been put forward but they are simply not sustainable.

SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—are one alternative. There is nothing wrong with them. They reduce the amount of surface run-off blowing into the sewerage system and complement other measures. However, the Government policy statement makes it clear that to prevent rain water and run-off entering sewerage systems completely will require either a new system designed to meet the principles of SUDS and source control or a completely new conventional separate water system, which would be disproportionately expensive. Although it can be installed effectively in new developments, trying to retrofit all London’s properties to the required level is simply impractical. It is impractical, too, to create extra capacity in the existing sewerage system. Existing sewers cannot be enlarged or duplicated because the system is so large and complex and has so many cross-connections that most of the network would need to be enlarged to prevent CSOs from discharging.

The Government’s report says that substantial duplication and enlargement to most of the sewers would entail massive construction work throughout inner London, enormous disruption and extremely high costs. Converting a combined drainage system into a separate drainage system would involve the provision of a completely new network of sewers approximately 12,000 km in length. Every existing property would require connecting to the new system and the cost and disruption would be high and might lead to a large number of misconnections, which could create a legacy of problems.

Any of those alternatives, if they were sustainable, would cost many times the cost of the tunnel—whether it be a SUD system or a separate rain water and sewerage system. What the opponents of the tunnel have been left with—I am sorry to see that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) appears to have joined them—is the idea of a shorter tunnel. This is a tunnel that would cover just west London—the so-called Selborne tunnel, named after the author of the report sponsored by Hammersmith and Fulham council.

The shorter tunnel has none of the advantages of the longer tunnel and brings many more problems. It would effectively mean sewage stuck in the shorter tunnel for up to two weeks at a time while it became septic and could go nowhere—clearly it can flow only through the existing network of sewers in east London as capacity becomes available there. It would also require far more storage on land in west London. Thames Water’s response to the Selborne report—I have no brief for Thames Water—was quite devastating, pointing out its follies and fallacies. Indeed, if we read the Selborne report, we find that it does not talk about the shorter tunnel because it was realised that it was not a workable proposition. It would cover only half of the CSOs in London—that is, it would do only half the job. East of Battersea, sewage would continue to go into the Thames; west of Battersea, including in my constituency, the tunnel would regularly be full of sewage, with all the attendant problems of smell and disease that that can cause.

[Mr Offord]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our aim is to address some of the environmental problems of the river apart from the death of the fish on which so many people seem to focus, and that because the shorter tunnel would not comply with the urban waste water directive, the whole exercise would be pointless?

[Mr Slaughter]

The whole exercise has been a PR exercise, a sham and a spoiler. Those who have supported, or are supporting, the shorter tunnel have no credibility when it comes to resolving environmental and other problems. By all means let people criticise the Thames tunnel on its merits, but let them not propose this chimera as an alternative.

As a Hammersmith Member of Parliament, I have had to deal with all the propaganda and misleading statements that have appeared over the past five years under the auspices of Hammersmith and Fulham council. In fact, there is a huge amount of consensus about what needs to be done, and, to a large extent, about the solution, at least in principle. It is agreed that we must resolve the problems of sewers flooding the Thames, and that a tunnel is the best way to do that. We can argue about the route and about the cost, but both this and the last Government, mayoral candidates, most local authorities and most London Members of Parliament of all parties are of one mind, and it is not helpful to suggest otherwise.

Let me summarise the recent history of the campaign against the tunnel in Hammersmith. It began because this was an EU scheme: it began as an anti-EU campaign. Then it was claimed that it would despoil all the local parks—such as Ravenscourt park, which is about half a mile from the Thames—or that Furnival gardens would be dug up, which was never the intention. There were also false claims that housing estates would be demolished to make way for the tunnel portals. None of that has helped to identify the reasons for what is being done.

I sympathise with individual residents’ groups who are concerned about what is happening in their immediate areas. My constituency contains at least two of the sites involved. The Acton sewage tanks are on the very border of my constituency, and I hope that the fact that the tunnel will begin at that point will mean an improvement, because tanks that often cause problems of smell and are unsightly will no longer be needed. The other site is the Hammersmith pumping station. I have had the pleasure of going down into it—as have the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) and many others—to see the appalling conditions that exist when raw sewage is pumped into the Thames. At that site, the necessary building work will be contained within the parameters of Thames Water’s own development area. Of course we should be concerned about the disruption caused by building work, and should encourage Thames Water to use the river wherever possible to take spoil away, but, as far as I can see, Thames Water is working quite closely with local authorities and others, when that is allowed, to ensure that that disruption is minimised. It will clearly be necessary to keep an eye on the situation.

The one issue that is of concern in Hammersmith and Fulham is what is going to be the main drive shaft of the tunnel, which was to have been at Barn Elms in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) but will now be in south Fulham, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). I feel for the residents of Fulham if disruptive work is to take place there, but much of the blame for that must lie with the local authority, which, by running an extraordinarily outrageous campaign against the tunnel on principle and on entirely false premises, has failed to engage with Thames Water other than to try to take it to court to prevent it from proceeding with the project at all. By contrast, the hon. Member for Richmond Park and other London local authorities have played a blinder in negotiating with Thames Water, pointing out the problems involved in development in one area or another. It seems that the people in Hammersmith and Fulham will have to put up with the main drive shaft because of the incompetence of their own local authority.

I find it strange that the main defence put up by Hammersmith is that 95% of what is going into the river at present is water, and only 5% is sewage. Raw sewage is, by definition, a mixture of water and other products. I am not sure that that quite answers the question of how we are to have a sustainable River Thames in the future. I was fascinated by the following statement by the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham in his explanation of why he is opposed to the tunnel:

“Anglers, rowers and sailors will experience personal benefits from the tunnel”.

Never before have I heard not having to swallow human excrement proposed as a personal benefit. There is a complete lack of reality about what is actually happening. At present, people who walk along the Thames towpath see raw sewage floating in the river on a regular, weekly basis. That is a disgrace to London, our capital city, and something must be done about it.

We must keep a careful eye on both where Thames Water is intending to build and the cost of this project. It is true that costs have escalated over time. Both Front-Bench teams have made the point that Thames Water’s bills are the lowest in the country, and even after the anticipated additional cost of the tunnel, its bills will be near or below the national average water bill. Although that is true, it is no great comfort to those of my constituents on low incomes who will have to pay the additional cost. Because there is a clear and overwhelming need for the alleviation of sewer flooding, the attitude to this issue of both Thames Water and the Government has been somewhat blasé.

Ironically, the Bill contains provisions for both the construction of the tunnel and subsidies in respect of excessive water bills. I am not suggesting that that may be required in the London area at present, but we must be aware that there are many very poor people in my constituency and across London who find it difficult to pay their water bills in addition to everything else. I would like either the Government or Ofwat to conduct a more critical analysis of Thames Water’s plans and the costs. We did that in respect of Crossrail, which is another major civil engineering project in London, to try to keep down, or drive down, costs, and I believe we should do the same for the Thames tunnel. It is not good enough simply to say that there are social tariffs and that the bills will be no higher than the national average. People are being asked to pay substantially extra on top of bills they may already be struggling to pay.

I am grateful for the House finding additional time to debate this issue, which is vital for London. There are only a handful of opponents, including those representing Hammersmith and Fulham. It is extraordinary that they do not have a response to what is a national embarrassment and a health hazard, and something that we can no longer sustain in London—a river that is getting back to the state it was in in the 19th century, when the Bazalgette scheme was necessary. Whenever we discuss projects such as HS2, Crossrail and the Thames tunnel, I am always ashamed that there seems to be a reluctance to undertake great civil engineering projects, in which this country led the world in the 19th century.

I hope that there is a solution, and I suspect that it is the Thames tunnel project. In going forward with it, the Government must consider the sensitivities of the various local areas and the cost.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I will make some progress, and then I will give way. Where specific issues required careful consideration, we brought in experts to advise us. We commissioned the Pitt report after the 2007 floods, the Cave report to look at competition and innovation, and the Walker report, which analysed water charging and looked explicitly at the problem of high bills in the south-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) legislated for water companies to introduce social tariffs in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I shall now examine each of those issues in turn.

Some have questioned why the Tory and Lib Dem Government wanted to extend £40 million a year in financial assistance to a region dominated by Tories and Lib Dems. I will leave others to speculate about the politics, but it is clear that customers in the south-west face bills that are, on average, 43% higher than in other areas. That is why we examined the issue in government and did the groundwork on helping those 700,000 households. I pay tribute to colleagues in all parts of the House, and to our former colleague, Linda Gilroy, for their work on the issue.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could tell the House the average cost of a water bill in the south-west pre-privatisation, and say how that compared with bills in other parts of the country.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know what the costs were, but I can say that all water bills were considerably lower pre-privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman looks at graphs of what happened to bills post-privatisation, he will see that they went up exponentially, particularly in the early 1990s. They were kept down in ’91 and ’92, and then they went up exponentially across the board. From memory, they were around £250; that has gone up massively.

[Mr Offord]

How much was it in the south-west?

[Mary Creagh]

I do not have those figures. Does the hon. Gentleman have them? Perhaps he will share them with the House in the debate.

We accept the argument that the south-west requires additional help to keep water affordable, but stopping there misses the point. Ofwat, the independent regulator, estimates that a fifth of households are already spending more than 3% of their income on their water bills, yet Ministers have failed to bring forward any plans to tackle high bills, apart from in the south-west, which has the highest bills in the country. There, around 200,000 people spend more than 3% of their disposable income on water bills, but in the Thames region there are a staggering 1 million people in the same predicament, so surely we should be working towards extending help through a national affordability solution. Without one, the effect of the Government’s £50-a-year payment in the south-west will soon be wiped out by price rises; prices will rise by more than inflation in each of the next three years. The assistance is welcome, but decoupled from wider reform, it will provide little lasting help on water affordability. I hope that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

We know from Ofwat that the groups most vulnerable to water poverty are single parents, pensioners and jobseekers. When we were in government, we introduced WaterSure, a national affordability scheme paid for by a cross-subsidy from water customers, and paid only to metered households with three or more children or to people with certain medical conditions, but the limitations of the scheme are apparent, because not everyone in water poverty has three or more children, and many pensioners and jobseekers will not be eligible for the scheme.

There is a further problem of penetration of WaterSure. Only a third of eligible households access the scheme, so there is big issue relating to the role of the water companies in educating their customers about WaterSure and the role of places such as jobcentres in making sure that people have access and understand their entitlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

On the question of the high water bills in the south-west, let me put on record the fact that in 2010-11, bills for South West Water customers were, on average, £486, which is certainly higher than the average bills in the rest of the country, which were £339. Unmetered customers had much higher bills, of course, at a rate of £721, whereas bills for metered customers in the south-west were £394 on average. As I and others have said, that was the focus of the Anna Walker inquiry.

[Mr Offord]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is about not only the cost of water bills in the south-west but the fact that the average weekly wage is about 30% lower than that in parts of the south-east and London?

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cornwall has been at the bottom of the earnings league table pretty much since records began. It has significantly higher water bills than anywhere else in the country, high levels of unemployment in some parts, as well as dependence on benefit, pensioner households and so on, and if we add to that the low average incomes across the households in the area, it is inevitable that in many households people will pay more than 3% of their income to meet their water bills.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the problem is partly caused by a lower level of infrastructure at the time of privatisation in the early ’90s and by the fact that the south-west has been significantly more burdened by the costs of the bathing water directive than any other region in the country. I have drawn the same parallel as others. The bathing waters around the Cornish and south-west coast are a national asset yet only 3% of the population must pay for the cost of cleaning up. The cost is very high, because many outfalls must all be dealt with very expensively, which is the primary cause of the excessive bills across the south-west. The general populace enjoy other national assets, such as the museums and galleries of London, and it is the general taxpayer who pays for them. We do not ask just London taxpayers to pay for the National Gallery, the British Museum and the other museums—we, as a country, contribute and that is an important parallel.

There has been a long-standing campaign and the Anna Walker review was rather belated but at least welcome and took us a long way down that road. I congratulate the previous Government for that and pay tribute, as other hon. Members have, to Linda Gilroy, a former Member of this House who contributed a great deal towards advancing the case for fairness in the billing of water customers, particularly in the south-west. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) for calling a debate on 14 June 2010, which can be found at column 710 of Hansard, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) for doing so on 9 March 2011.

There are issues that need to be addressed. To sum up—I am aware that I have taken as much time as the previous speakers—I hope the Minister will address my questions. Clause 1(3) concerns the discretion of the Secretary of State in determining which customers within any particular water company area might benefit from the intervention of the Secretary of State to vary the bills or make a contribution, and my question, which relates back to the announcement of the payment of £50 per household in last year’s autumn statement, concerns how a household will be defined.

In my area, a large number of households run bed-and-breakfast facilities, guest houses and other businesses, and they are businesses for the purposes of South West Water’s billing structure. However, there are also many wealthy second home owners who have water meters and pay virtually nothing towards the very high costs of getting water to their properties, which are often very remote—on cliffs and so on—and taking away their sewage. Often, they let their properties at very high prices and make a lot of money, but they are not considered to be businesses and so they will get the benefit of the reduction of £50 per household. That clear and evident unfairness is one of many, but I shall not bore the House with a raft of examples regarding this issue of how households should be defined. If we are addressing issues of vulnerability and affordability amongst water rate payers, we need to be very careful how we define households.

The £50 per household reduction is a rather blunt instrument. Yes, it is efficient and it means that the administrative costs will, one hopes, be less than would have been the case with a more elegant and sophisticated measure for targeting vulnerable households. However, because of the problems with adopting a WaterSure system across the south-west and because of the evident unwillingness of water rate payers in the south-west to make any further contribution to a scheme that would benefit vulnerable households, it is unlikely that those households will be able to benefit from any application of a regionally based WaterSure system. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at whether we can resurrect any form of a national WaterSure system. Clearly, we will go back to South West Water and talk to it again about how it might address the issue of particularly vulnerable households.

A number of matters need to be addressed and I am sorry that I have not addressed those concerning London, but I know they will be addressed by many other people. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s reply and his responses to the questions that have been raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill, as I have much experience of both South West Water and Thames Water, However, I must say that my perceptions of the two companies differ widely. They appear to operate at different ends of the spectrum: South West Water levies one of the highest surcharges in the UK and has the lowest number of consumers, while Thames Water levies one of the lowest surcharges and has the highest number of consumers.

The Bill is about a decade overdue. The shadow Secretary of State said that many of the problems are the result of privatisation, but that is an erroneous assertion. If we look at the value of the water companies before privatisation, we will see that Anglian Water was worth £357 million, North West Water £458 million, Severn Trent £476 million and Thames Water £558 million, but South West Water was worth a lowly £106 million. In general terms, at the time of privatisation South West Water had the lowest amount of assets per property, and since privatisation the company has invested about £2 billion, in 2007 prices, to bring its infrastructure to the same level as that elsewhere in England and Wales.

At privatisation, South West Water’s bills were about £50 higher than the national average. This disparity was exacerbated by the impact of the bathing water directive and, of course, the urban waste water treatment directive. As the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office recognised in 1992, privatisation of the water industry was an unprecedented task, with 10 utility monopolies floated on the stock market at the same time after years of restricted investment and an obligation then to spend more than £24 billion in a decade in order to catch up. Any perception of failure now can be attributed only to the lack of governmental interest in the industry 10 years after privatisation and, in the case of South West Water, in the 19 years its consumers have had to wait for the Walker review.

If greater interest had been shown, one industry practice that is causing problems across the country would have been identified: the use of combined sewer overflows. CSOs are intended to act as release valves at times of higher operational use. When Sir Joseph Bazalgette first planned the sewers for London, he gave every person a sewage production allowance and decided the diameter of pipe needed to remove it. He then doubled that diameter. We should all be grateful that he did so; had he not, the smaller size of the sewers would have ensured that they overflowed in the 1960s.

However, the Metropolitan Board of Works said that the cost of Bazalgette’s plans was too high, so he proposed and installed the combined sewer overflow system. This ensured that when it rained the accumulation of rain water that enters the sewerage system can be released through the CSOs, taking the sewage with it. London’s current population is estimated to be about 8 million and rising. In a typical year, 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage is discharged into the River Thames with as little as 2 mm of rainfall. To put that in perspective, that is enough to fill the Royal Albert hall 450 times, and the discharges occur about once a week on average.

The emerging effluent contains not only sewage and storm water, but biochemical oxygen demand material, pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, oils and suspended solids. In short, London’s Victorian sewers can no longer cope, which is why London desperately needs the super-sewer, or Thames tunnel. The CSOs discharge into the river not only chemical and biological contaminants, but nearly 10,000 tonnes of litter every year, including toilet paper, wipes, sanitary towels, condoms, cotton buds and other flushable items. I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) accompanied Thames Water on a trip, as I did, where he saw for himself the problems at the pumping station at Fulham. The hidden dangers of the effluent that goes into the river include pathogens, viruses and bacteria, such as E. coli, hepatitis A and faecal streptococci.

Due to the ebb and flow of the tide, it can take up to three months for sewage that has entered the uppermost reaches of the Thames to reach the sea. That is a problem in itself, but the persistence of infection is a real problem. Around 50% of typhoid bacteria are destroyed in an aquatic environment in one to three days, and 90% is destroyed in three to 13 days, but the most resistant can remain for weeks and retain their power of infection, which has an impact on not only the people who use the river, but those who live around it.

[Mr Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and he is right to say that I visited a pumping station, although it was the Hammersmith one. When most people think about pumping stations, they think that some form of treatment is going on there. On the contrary: a structure that is probably half the size of this Chamber fills up with raw sewage, which is then pumped straight into the Thames, and that happens on at least a weekly basis. Does he agree that it is highly irresponsible to say that we should clean up the Thames so that it is so clean that salmon can thrive and prosper in it? We need to clean it up because it is an essential health matter.

[Mr Offord]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am probably aware who he is citing, and, having had conversations with the former leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not agree on this subject, though we may agree on many others.

The super-sewer in London is essential to ensure that the UK complies with European environmental standards and, most particularly, the urban waste water treatment directive. All British taxpayers are at risk of having to fund hefty EU fines if the UK is confirmed to be in breach of that directive.

It is not just London and Thames Water that need to take action, however. All water companies have a contract with their consumers not only to provide them with clean water, but to remove their sewage and to treat it responsibly, but that is not happening. The water quality of Britain’s beaches is being jeopardised by thousands of unregulated overflow pipes that dump raw sewage into coastal waters and rivers. It has been estimated that 3,500 pipes operated by water companies pump unlimited amounts of raw sewage into more than 80 rivers and along sections of our coastline. That comprises more than 60 operated by South West Water, including pipes on the River Torridge, which flows to a popular Devon beach; more than 250 outlets operated by Yorkshire Water, including sewage flowing into the North sea; sewage overflows on the River Don, where thousands of fish were killed by sewage pollution in 2006; and an overflow, operated by United Utilities near Manchester, which was blamed for polluting a fishery in 2005.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the need to be mindful at all times of how outdated sewerage systems can cause problems. People may be more accepting of occasional discharges during periods of very high rainfall, but he knows north Cornwall well, and if he considers the area of Trevone he may wish to look again at South West Water’s record on delivering its promises, because in that area discharges have been occurring several times a month, and the company has yet to take action. I have raised that issue with South West Water, and we hope to address it soon, but he is absolutely right that there is a problem not just here in London, but throughout the country.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a worrying pattern developing whereby the erudition of interventions is equalled only by their length.

[Mr Offord]

I take it from that only that you would like me to talk for even longer, Mr Speaker.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, and having had some experience as a lifeguard in Cornwall I have seen at first hand the problems that South West Water has caused. I intend to go on to address the points that he raises.

From my experience in Cornwall and elsewhere, I am aware also that there are 500 regulated sewer overflows on Britain’s beaches that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, are supposed to operate only after heavy rain. However, swimmers and surfers often complain, even to me, that the overflows operate more regularly to relieve pressure on sewerage systems that are said to be “at bursting point” by the various water companies.

Despite a £10 billion investment programme by water companies since privatisation, about one in four beaches still fails to qualify for the European Union’s top category. The investment has ensured that 96% now meet the lower mandatory standard, but this still means that a swimmer, surfer or scuba diver has a 14% chance of contracting a bacterial or viral infection, and that is simply not acceptable.

Every year the water companies factor into their operating costs the insignificant fines, ranging from a couple of thousand pounds to tens of thousands of pounds, that can be levied on them, and they know that it is cheaper to pay them than to ensure that their infrastructure performs within the terms of their licences. Water companies are labelled repeat offenders, as year on year they are fined for impacting the environment with unlicensed discharges of untreated sewage. Only last Friday South West Water was ordered to pay almost £40,000 in fines and costs for allowing sewage to escape into the River Dart near Galmpton in south Devon, after effluent entered the river last May and caused the closure of a shellfishery.

The 1976 EU bathing water directive is not designed to identify effectively the impacts on the environment from combined sewer overflows. It is useful in giving an indication of water quality over the bathing water season, but all that it really tells us is the water quality during 20 short periods over 140 days, and only in the most popular bathing zones, not at the points where water is most likely to be polluted, such as the mouth of a river or the nearest CSO on the beach.

The revised bathing water directive, which will come into force in 2015, will mean four years’ consecutive data being examined and water being measured against tougher standards. However, there will still be 20 samples, and many pollution incidents will fall between the gaps. I remain concerned that many CSOs are deemed not to have an impact on bathing waters, and so are licensed for even more frequent discharges—the licences do not contain a set figure.

The CSOs also discharge when a predetermined volume of water is being passed forward within the sewerage system. When that volume is reached, the CSO can be employed to release pressure from the system, resulting in raw sewage on beaches and in rivers more than 100 times a year, equal to the frequency in London. Those CSO discharges can also have an impact on the coastal environment. Our over-reliance on CSOs has resulted in the European Commission taking the UK to court over a breach of the EU urban waste water directive of 1991. The case has been heard, but we are still waiting for the judgment.

I support the Thames tunnel, the super-sewer or whatever we want to call it, for the environmental and economic benefits that it will achieve in London. The project is expected to add £70 to £80 to the average Thames Water waste water charge, which has been among the lowest in the country, and I recognise the problems that that would cause some people. Even with the Thames tunnel, however, Thames Water’s bill would rise only to the national average. The additional resources from the Government should allay some of the fears of the people whom colleagues have mentioned.

I also welcome the reduction for South West Water customers, but according to one estimate highlighted by the company itself, the cost of removing or further reducing the impact of CSOs in its region’s network would be about £500 million, which could add as much as £40 a year to the average bill in the region. If the Government propose to subsidise each South West Water customer by £50, the company should by its own evidence be able to afford to undertake that work from its current resources. I should like that to happen, particularly given the introduction of the new bathing water directive. Until that occurs, it is anathema for any Government to claim that we have bathing water of a high standard in this country. My experience, and that of other Members, has been that that is simply not the case.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate, but I find it rather sad that we are still talking about this issue after so much time. DEFRA officials said in 2009 that the ban could be introduced under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We went wrong when the Minister of State commented recently that a total ban on wild animals in circuses might be seen as disproportionate under the EU services directive and under our own Human Rights Act 1998. I must say that, on that point, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). Having had some contact with the Whips in the past week, I have become quite an expert on the Human Rights Act and particularly knowledgeable on article 8 of the convention.

With regard to the European Court’s case law, it is difficult to envisage a cogent argument that could support the assertion that a ban would engage the other rights set out in the convention, such as the rights to life and to a fair trail. Therefore, I can only presume that the Minister made his comments while considering a ban under article 8.

Article 8(1) has been interpreted extremely broadly by the European Court, whereas exemptions or limitations to the right have been interpreted narrowly. The right has three potentially relevant elements: private life, family life and home. Private life has been held to include the right to develop one’s own personality and relationships with others. The European Court considered that the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of the right.

However, the right has been held not to apply to activities that relate to the private aspects of a person’s life, such as those that take place in public and where there is no expectation of privacy. In the current situation, a ban relates not to the private aspects of the lives of those potentially affected, but to their employment, which essentially takes place in public and without the expectation of privacy. Equally, the ban would not affect the right to a family life, as it would not prevent or interfere with a person living in proximity to their family.

Finally, the concept of home under the convention is wide and would include travelling accommodation as well as permanent dwellings.

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

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about article 8 of the convention, but at no time have I referred to it. If he had read what I said, he would know that I referred to article 1.

[Mr Offord]

I am happy to stand corrected by the Minister. That allows me to move my argument on.

Another argument is that a ban on animals in circuses would interfere with a person’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions because it would amount to a control on how those possessions may be used, but such an interference with that right would not violate the right if it were done in the public interest. I therefore urge the Minister to consider a ban in that public interest.

The European Courts have decided that, whether or not the control on possessions imposed by a ban is in the public interest, they will have regard to whether a ban represents a fair balance between the needs of the public interest and the rights of the individual. In other words, I tell the Minister that the European Courts will consider whether a total ban is a proportionate measure to achieve the public interest aim in question.

Accordingly, it is important to consider why exactly a ban is required in the public interest. If a total ban is proposed to ensure that animals are kept in appropriate conditions and cared for by appropriately qualified persons, there is an argument that, unlike the proposed licensing and inspection regime, a ban is not proportionate to the public interest aim being pursued. If a total ban is proposed because it is considered cruel or ethically wrong to make wild animals perform in circuses in the UK, however, a total ban is the only measure that will achieve that public aim.

Accordingly, if Parliament determines that wild animals performing in circuses is no longer acceptable to the public, it will therefore be in the public interest to have a ban on the use of such animals. The European Courts would be very unlikely to question the judgment of this House as to what is in the public interest of the United Kingdom.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the UK more than 200 local authorities have bans on animals in circuses, and that more than two thirds of those bans are on all performing animals, the remainder being on wild animals? Is he aware also of any ongoing court cases under human rights legislation?

[Mr Offord]

I am certainly not aware of any cases under human rights legislation, and the situation involves not just 200 local authorities, but countries and principalities in countries, including Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. All those countries have to decided to take that suggested approach, yet we are once again kowtowing to the European Courts.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

On human rights, does my hon. Friend accept that it takes only one person to challenge this decision in order to delay for a number of years the process that every Member seems to want, whereas sensible regulation would achieve the same aims over a much shorter time?

[Mr Offord]

I suggest, as others have already urged, that we take a lead on the matter. As I have said, I have had some experience with the Human Rights Act this week, but when people use it they find that many in officialdom bow down and decide that, suddenly, it is a very important issue and that those people will get away with what they are trying to achieve.

In summary, case law from the European Court of Human Rights indicates that a ban would be within the “margin of appreciation” afforded to the United Kingdom. If a ban is proposed because it is considered cruel or ethically wrong in itself to make wild animals perform in circuses in the United Kingdom, as opposed to a ban being proposed because welfare standards cannot be guaranteed, then a ban is the only measure that will achieve that public interest aim and is therefore automatically proportionate.

Accordingly, a ban will not breach the European convention on human rights, and as a ban is only a control on the use of wild animals in circuses and therefore does not deprive the owner of the animal itself or of their ability to use it for commercial purposes, there is a strong presumption against compensation being awarded to persons who suffer any loss as a result of the ban. If the Government decide to implement a ban, it will not be as revolutionary as we have heard, given the 200 local authorities and the other countries that have been mentioned.

I do not believe that animals should be subjected to the conditions of circus life. Regular transport, cramped and bare temporary housing, forced training and performance, loud noises and crowds of people are all typical and often unavoidable realities for such animals. Therefore, unless the Government give us a time frame for a ban on animals in circuses, I will vote for the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I began my speech by welcoming the change of heart over the past couple of hours. I have not been part of that process, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am very pleased that we will have a free vote—it is the kind of issue that should have a free vote. I am very much on the record before the debate as saying that I would have defied a three-line Whip and voted for the motion, as a very large number of Government Members would have done. That is perhaps one of the reasons why we will now have a free vote.

The most disturbing aspect of the Government’s change of position is that it is not based on a change of heart. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the only reason we have been given is that the Government fear a possible EU legal challenge some time in future. The Minister was quoted in The Independent today, I believe, as saying that

“a total ban on wild animals in circuses might well be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union services directive and under our own Human Rights Act”.

If that is true, it is hard to imagine anything more embarrassing for the House. The Government are effectively saying that even though they want to do this minor thing, and even though the public would support such a move, they cannot do it because they no longer have the authority. What does that say about Parliament, democracy or this country?

Let me put it another way. What is the point of making promises up and down the country in the run-up to an election on the campaign trail if we no longer have the authority to fulfil even the most basic promise? That makes a mockery of parliamentary democracy in this country.

[Mr Offord]

I am sure my hon. Friend will recall the issue of prisoners’ voting rights, when the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights told us we were not allowed to deny them those rights. I was pleased that hon. Members, particularly Government Members, had the opportunity to show the will of Parliament. This is an opportunity for us to show our will again.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely accept that point, and there are other examples too. We had a debate a month ago on fish discards, and the House unanimously agreed a resolution requiring that the Government veto any reforms to the common fisheries policy unless they included our reasserting control over the 12 miles around our coast. It remains to be seen whether we have the strength to show our will again, although I very much hope that we do, just as we did over prisoner votes. In this case, the legal advice is, at best, ambiguous, and I am convinced by the arguments used by a number of speakers that there is, in fact, no genuine threat at all, and that this is something that the Government should and must do. I am going to back the motion, and I hope that colleagues will do the same, if not for the wild animals themselves then simply to send a message to the public that Parliament exists, and exists for a purpose.