Rural Communities

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under you, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this debate on rural poverty and the rural countryside.

We must talk up the countryside, because we are sometimes victims of our own success. One reason why house prices are so high in the countryside is that people who come on holiday to Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and other places—they even venture into Wales occasionally—retire there. Of course, we welcome retired people, but they do drive up the price of houses. Then people who work in the countryside, where wages are usually about 12% to 15% lower, have great difficulty buying properties. That is why affordable homes and planning are important. We must enable local villages, hamlets and communities to have affordable homes. I would like not only affordable homes but shared ownership, which gives people a chance to buy a share in a property and later, perhaps, to buy the whole property. It allows more people into home ownership.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the average age in rural communities is seven years older than in urban communities? Is it not an option for exception sites—I will be pushing for my parishes in North West Leicestershire—to provide retirement bungalows for people, with qualifications? Often, a widow or widower who has lived in the village all their life may own a large family house. They no longer require all that space, but they do not want to lose their friends and relations in the village. If they moved to a retirement bungalow, they could free up a house so that a new family could move into the village.

[Neil Parish]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Managing housing stock effectively is absolutely right. We need a supply of retirement bungalows so that people can move out of three or four-bedroom houses and live in their own area. I am a great believer in encouraging people to move, not browbeating them. It is essential to have such housing in an area.

I congratulate the Minister on what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been doing about red tape in farming and agriculture. We want to extend that beyond farming to all small businesses. We are a nation of shopkeepers and small businesses, and nowhere are they more essential than in the countryside. We need much less regulation so that businesses can thrive.

Food prices are rising. Although many people might not welcome that, it is a stimulus to the countryside in many respects. It stimulates not only agriculture but food processing. I would welcome the Government announcement that we hope for in the Queen’s Speech of a grocery trade adjudicator to ensure that the right proportion of the prices that we pay in shops returns to those who produce and process the food. That is absolutely essential.

I know that I will not make myself entirely popular with those who represent constituencies involved with the oil industry when I say that what has driven up the price of petrol at the pumps is the fact that crude oil prices have risen. If crude oil prices have risen globally, the companies are making vast profits, because their investment has not increased. We should tap into that a little more in order to reduce fuel prices in the countryside. Fuel is not a luxury; it is a necessity. I do not care how much money the Government invest in rural bus services; in many places in my constituency, if one waited for a bus, it would never come, and if it came, it would probably be going in the wrong direction. That might be facetious, but it is absolutely true. We must face up to the reality that in many small rural areas, bus companies will never run efficiently. Where we can make that happen, we must, but we need to consider it.

Tourism is hugely valued and is linked with agriculture and the countryside, and we must help it. I welcome the Government money for that in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I return to the start of my hon. Friend’s speech, which is positive about our rural communities. I agree that they are absolutely thriving. Over the Easter period, I visited an engineering business in my constituency that is expanding so fast—it has 70 workers now—that it cannot find premises. We have 11 micro-breweries in my Yorkshire constituency, and a new dye house—so there is lots of vibrancy in our rural communities.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. The intervention is too long.

[Neil Parish]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. I want to ensure that we do not leave this debate thinking that everything in the countryside is doom and gloom. There is much going on. That leads me to broadband and superfast broadband. The Government have invested £30 million in Devon and Somerset. We want to ensure that that delivers broadband to isolated areas as well, so that the easiest areas to get at are not picked off and the rest left. That is essential.

My final point involves school funding. Devon is 247th in the league; it is among the least funded in the country. We talk about fairness. I am not griping or grouching. We need fair delivery of funding throughout the country. Rural schools are small and cost more to run, so we need a fairer system.

I welcome this debate. The presence of Members from all parties shows how strongly we feel that the rural community deserves great support.

Common Fisheries Policy

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend. Let us hope that, through people like us and others, the small fishermen will have a bigger voice in future. It will be important for them to do so.

Among the fishermen I speak to, the environmental lobby—of all kinds and colours—appears to hold sway. That is the perception. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of that, as I have written to him about this on many occasions. Indeed, he has visited my constituency on more than one occasion, for which we are all grateful. We all know that we should not plunder our seas, but we must go forward working on the basis of fact, not fiction. I am encouraged that the motion mentions the need for

“more scientific research to underpin decision-making”.

Hurrah! I welcome that.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Drax]

I am not allowed to; I have given way twice. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I struggle on, although I can assure him that I am not going to go on for another eight minutes and 44 seconds.

Scientific research is in the interests of all fishermen, whether from the warm Mediterranean or the icy sub-Arctic. If we do not protect our fisheries now, we will not have a fishing industry. That is a fact. Much attention has been paid to the campaign to end the practice of fish discards, in which perfectly good but dead fish are thrown back into the sea in order to meet arbitrary quotas. The rules are endlessly bent, however, because the targets are so unrealistic. I applaud the Minister’s efforts to tackle that problem on a local basis.

I acknowledge, just for once, that the European Commission has recognised the failure of the CFP and set out a series of proposals. However, the Select Committee has pointed out that the Commission is embarking on the journey without a clear plan—nothing new there! I know that the Minister has already fought off proposals that would have damaged our national interests, and I am confident, as are my fishermen, that he will continue to do that. I am also confident that our fishermen respect his work, and it is a tough job to gain the respect of fishermen, but the Minister is operating with his hands tied behind his back. Once again, our national interests are threatened by those of a much bigger entity, which purports to act for us but fails to do so. None of this comes as any surprise to those of us who are familiar with the workings of the European project.

The motion invites us to call on the Government

“to use the current round of Common Fisheries Policy reform to argue for a reduction in micro-management from Brussels”,

and, of course, I agree with that. It must be no secret by now that I would like the Government to extend that goal far, far beyond fishing. I know that the Minister will pass on that message to all the relevant people. I urge him to continue to stand up for our downtrodden fishermen around the country and, of course, those in South Dorset in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the Israelis have fish quotas? Are there any restrictions on the amount of fish that can be caught from the seas off Israel? How do the Israelis manage their stock? I know that it is not a vast amount of water, but how is it managed?

[Martin Vickers]

If I attempted to reply to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be entering into very deep waters! I have not brushed up on my knowledge of the Israeli fishing fleet over the last two or three days, so I will leave my reply for another occasion.

As has been said many times, what we want is the repatriation of powers. Whether it be in Gaza or in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, there is a deep sense of grievance about the restrictions. The report states that

“a more effective system of European fisheries governance could be achieved if high-level objectives only are set centrally by the European institutions”.

As has been pointed out by many other speakers, that would mean leaving the day-to-day management of stocks at regional and local levels, which would be a welcome development.

I am being urged to speak slowly in order to take up the time, but I know that at least one other Member wishes to speak, so I shall make only one more point. We must recognise that we are dealing with communities, and with the livelihoods of people in those communities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this debate on fisheries and the common fisheries policy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for securing it and for chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We have heard from several Committee members, including my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), as well as the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon)—I was going to say “North Teesside”, but I know that it is somewhere up north—who has great expertise in this topic.

May I also pay tribute to my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray)? She has huge knowledge of fishing and the fishing industry—indeed, her knowledge of those areas is probably second to none in this House. She endured a terrible tragedy last year, and all our hearts go out to her. In the circumstances, it is very brave of her to speak about fishing issues as she does.

I also wish to join many other Members in commending the Minister on the very good job he has done battling away in Brussels. We certainly do need to battle away. It is difficult enough trying to manage and organise fishing policy for the seas off the coasts of Cornwall, Devon and the north of England—and even Scotland, if I may dare say so—from here in Westminster.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation we are in now is similar to what happened a decade ago? We heard similar promises then, but the end result was not what we anticipated. We should bear that in mind when we send the Minister to Brussels to negotiate.

[Neil Parish]

We have, of course, a new Minister and a new—coalition—Government, and I have every faith in both this Minister and this Government to deliver what we want.

It is essential that we fight our corner. The European Commission offers great gifts of devolving powers. It offers the tools to achieve that, but when we look into the toolbox we find that it contains very few tools. In the end, the instinct of Brussels is not to give powers away but to grab powers. It has done that for decades. That is why the CFP is in such a mess. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) that we should not have just six-mile and 12-mile limits, but should extend that and have a 200-mile limit.

Let us consider what the Norwegians can do. If an area of the Norwegian sea is being over-fished they can shut it down within hours. In the European Union, however, it would take months—if an agreement is ever, in fact, reached. In the EU we have Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia all arguing about fishing. They have a few lakes, but they have no coast. The European Commission plays that situation, of course.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does my hon. Friend agree that such countries can use their CFP votes as leverage to negotiate on other matters that have nothing whatever to do with fisheries? That is wrong.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Austria receives probably the largest amount of rural development money of any EU country. I suspect it has traded many times with the Commission to achieve that situation, by agreeing to go along with what the Commission wants on fishing. We must sort that out.

Not only should we manage our waters in a way that enables us to act quickly from a conservation point of view, but we also need the fishermen to sign up to the regulations. The CFP is a little like communism: there is a lovely warm feeling that we are all going to work together for the greater good, but in reality nobody does that. Our fishermen try to conserve fish by doing all the right things such as reducing the size of their nets and reducing the number of discards, but then they are terrified that the Spanish or others will come in and hoover up the fish whose stocks they have conserved through their actions. That highlights a key problem with the CFP.

[Richard Drax]

Does my hon. Friend think the Europeans would care one jot if local fishermen such as mine in Dorset disappeared entirely?

[Neil Parish]

No, I do not think they would. They offer great platitudes to those who go out of fishing, but all they are interested in is having a centralised policy whereby the total amount of fish caught within the EU meets their targets. They are not actually worried how many fishermen there are to do the fishing, even though they will tell people otherwise. This, again, comes back to the problem of managing things from Brussels, so we have to deal with the principles of the CFP.

I suspect that the Minister may well not be able to come back with a 200-mile limit yet, but we have great confidence that over a period of years he will achieve that. I say that because of what we are doing now with this limited resource: we are throwing it into the sea, dead. A lot of those fish actually putrefy on the sea bed. Local fishermen tell me that a lot of sea lice attack the dead fish and that when they catch fresh fish that are alive they often bring up in their nets some of those dead fish, which contaminate the healthy fish. Is this situation logical? Is it right? No, it is absolutely wrong.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that rotten fish on the sea bed not only contaminate the catch, but prevent other fish from coming into these areas to swim? This is like having a graveyard on the bed of the sea, and we would not go into a room full of dead bodies, would we?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

We would hope that we would not. As my hon. Friend says, the last thing we would want to do would be to go into a room full of dead bodies. She summed up the situation well, because all those dead fish are being put back into the sea and they are contaminating the other fish that we catch. The dead fish are a health hazard and that needs to be dealt with. We talk a lot about sustainability, but we need to talk about how we manage that particular side of things.

I have spoken directly to the Minister about the particular concerns of a fishing company in my constituency. It has a lot of vessels, it fishes around the whole of the United Kingdom and it has 140 tonnes of cod quota, but of course it is allowed to fish only 35 tonnes of that. This is a mixed fishery; we have been talking about whether fish understand what flags they have on them, but they certainly do not understand that they should conveniently swim along species by species, so that one fisherman can catch cod, another can catch hake and so on. That does not happen, so all those healthy cod are being caught, and because the fishermen do not have the necessary quota, they are then discarding this excellent fish, which people in this country love to eat. The fishermen have every right to go out to sea because they have quota for other species and they are not fishing directly for cod. We have to find some flexibility and a way of ensuring that the fish that are caught are landed.

Another argument is that if we are to know what is being caught in the sea, and what the stocks are, we have to land much more of a given fish to be able to analyse exactly what is being caught and what those stocks are.

[Oliver Colvile]

The other point I made was that we are finding that anchovies and sardines are coming into our waters now. How easy will it be for the fishing industry to adapt to catching that sort of fish, which have not traditionally been found around the British isles?

[Neil Parish]

It might well be difficult for our fishermen to catch some of the types of fish that are now coming into our waters, for the simple reason that the type of nets being used may not catch them. Alternatively, those fish, too, may be caught in the nets being put out in a mixed fishery, so we may have an even greater loss, as I suspect that our fishermen will not have quota for those particular species. So the whole situation gets worse and worse, and we want our fishermen to be able to earn a living. That is why our Minister has such a nightmare to sort out.

The next matter is very difficult to deal with, because fishermen and the fishing industry have made big investments in quota and are keen to see it maintained, but our 10-metre fleet and the under 10-metre fleet want to catch more fish sustainably, which has a huge impact on our coastal communities. Even that is complicated, because of the super 10-metre fleet, which has large engines and can catch as much fish as the large boats. It all becomes very complicated—and that is why we have such a marvellous Minister to sort it out.

[Sheryll Murray]

Not only do some of those 10-metre boats have large engines, but some tow two nets at the same time. I have heard that they are now considering towing three nets, so they are fishing at the same intensity as some of the larger vessels with which we are all familiar.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is right, because fishing boats’ engines, the type of satellite, the equipment used for navigation and to see exactly where the fish are, and all the other equipment on those boats, are getting so much more sophisticated that it is almost impossible for the fish to escape. It is not a case of putting one’s finger up and seeing which way the wind is blowing: the fish can be found. We need to find the balance in how we share a limited resource. We must get rid of the discards one way or another, and we need to ensure that fish are shared out between the different fishermen in our waters. We need to manage our waters not just in the six and 12-mile limits but out to the 200-mile limit.

As has been mentioned, what has happened has been a travesty of justice. When we joined the Common Market in 1973 we presented a low figure for the number of fish we caught, whereas other countries, especially France, Belgium and others, inflated their figures. We have suffered from that ever since, and it needs to be put right.

I want to raise one last point, and that is the problem of the slipper skippers—people who, year after year, do not have the boats to catch their fish and are leasing out their quota. I feel that the Minister should impose a siphon—perhaps 10% or 20%—every time they lease out their quota, so that over five or 10 years they will lose their quota. That quota could then go to the smaller fleets and the under 10-metre boats. That would send out the message that when someone is sitting on a sofa and not fishing, it is not right for them to hold quota.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). We have had a good debate and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on delivering this Bill and the official Opposition on their constructive approach. I understand their request for greater parliamentary scrutiny and their case was well argued, sincere and well meant. In relation to clause 1, the explanatory notes state in paragraph 12:

“The power is discretionary and may be exercised for such reasons as the Secretary of State feels desirable.”

Any parliamentarian will relish the opportunity of scrutinising such orders and it need not take long. Unfortunately, the Opposition failed in their quest.

The Bill covers a number of important matters. On the affordability of South West Water bills and funding, I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and the clarification. I understand that the commitment is there to fund the South West Water bill until the end of the next spending round. I personally will pledge—I am sure others will do so, too—to give him any support we can in his discussions about the funding with the Treasury.

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

I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the Treasury, because the situation in the south-west will not go away. We have 3% of the population and 30% of the beaches, and the beaches must be kept clean, which costs a lot of money. We will need help in the future, so if the Treasury could find that money we would be most obliged.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and I want to record how well represented the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been in the debate. He obviously has a particular interest in the south-west, and if the money is available only until the end of this spending round, we will then have to find the money for South West Water at the beginning of the next spending round. The powers are there and the Secretary of State has the discretion to extend the scheme to other areas, but, given the economic turmoil in which the country still finds itself, such a result seems highly unlikely. I shall watch this space with interest.

I know that we will continue the discussion on the Thames tunnel on Monday when we debate the waste water national policy statement, but although it is an extremely exciting project, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is a giant project. Londoners and those of us who spend our working week in London should be under no illusion about the fact that there will be a degree of disruption during its construction. I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the local work force. That is very good news for the Thames tunnel and, obviously, if we have relevant expertise in Thirsk, Malton and Filey, I hope we can provide some of the work force for it.

The Committee has recently heard evidence on other issues, including the White Paper “Water for Life”, the current drought, water efficiency, regulation and introducing competition. As my hon. Friend knows, I have an interest in implementing all the outstanding recommendations of the Michael Pitt report. There is some argument that this Bill should rightly have formed part of the broader Bill that we are still waiting for, but this Bill will enable the Government to meet the commitment given in the water White Paper and confirmed in the Chancellor’s autumn statement.

The Committee stands ready, willing and enthusiastic and is looking forward to pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft water Bill. It is a matter of some regret that that Bill will be delayed, particularly as regards affordability. The water White Paper proposes that companies should be encouraged to introduce company social tariffs to help poorer customers, funded by a cross-subsidy from the water company’s other customers. The Minister said that there are many tools at the disposal of water companies, but it is appropriate that we should consider the suggestions made in the Anna Walker review.

Water affordability is increasingly becoming an issue. Ofwat figures show that 11% of households spend more than 5% of their income on their water and sewerage bill, and we now hear about water poverty as well as about fuel poverty. Company social tariffs can be introduced only where they have the broad support of the company’s customer base. Alternative approaches would be to provide Government funding for social tariffs or to operate customer cross-subsidy at a national level. I am sure we will have the opportunity to explore those ideas in the wider Bill.

Water companies have called on the Government to make available to them information regarding the customers who are most likely to be struggling with their bills—for example, from Department for Work and Pensions data on benefits—to allow them better to target their social tariffs. I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I am not sure that he was able to respond on this point, but the sooner we can make that information available the sooner we can extend these tariffs. I am delighted that the Consumer Council for Water supported this idea in the evidence that it recently gave to our Committee, and the Government have said they are considering this suggestion. I hope we will not be hampered by data protection provisions.

It was shocking to learn in a Select Committee evidence session that bad debt in the water sector costs every paying customer approximately £15 a year. A large part of the problem is the fact that there is no obligation on landlords to provide details of their tenants, which means that water companies do not know who to bill for their services. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. It is entirely appropriate to place a statutory obligation on landlords to provide details of their tenants or else be held liable for water bills at their properties. There is an urgent need for such measures, as were included in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Those provisions have not yet been implemented and the Government have consulted on using a voluntary approach, which is welcome, to encourage landlords to provide information rather than implementing the provisions in the 2010 Act. Clearly, that was a source of disappointment to water companies. In their evidence to the Select Committee, they said that was a rather retrograde step and argued that the Government should implement the provisions on landlord liability as soon as possible. I am delighted to make that case to the Minister today.

The Minister is aware of my interest in and passion for SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—and I hope that we will have early implementation of those. I pay tribute to the work of Gray and the regulatory aspects of the Gray review, to the work of Anna Walker in her review and to the work of Cave in his review. I hope that the Government will give some teeth to the recommendations not only on affordability, in the measures before the House today and in the wider Bill, but also on water efficiency. This is precisely the time when we should be considering those measures because of the imminent drought. I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield will be as concerned as I am that it is reaching parts of Yorkshire, including my area. That is something on which we need to proceed apace.

I shall be delighted if we do not proceed to bring in the provisions of the 2010 Act to reduce the 25,000 cubic metre limit in reservoirs to a 10,000 cubic metre limit. My hon. Friend knows that I have been extremely patient—or not—in waiting for the provisions on reservoir safety. I hope they will come forward sooner rather than later. We are going to need more reservoirs to be built. Increasingly, engineers have a safety issue and I am sure that there would be a benefit from bringing forward that safety review.

I believe this Bill is a great success. It allows water and sewerage companies to raise the finances and investment they need, particularly in relation to the south-west. We very much look forward to the wider draft Bill, but I commend this Bill and wish it a speedy and fair passage through the other place.

Mauritania (Fishing Agreement)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for allowing me to contribute to her Adjournment debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for his report highlighting the problems in Mauritania.

I want to talk not only about what is happening in Mauritania, but about the agreements in principle. I spent 10 years in the European Parliament from 1999 to 2009 and voted against every agreement, because—quite simply—the EU should not be buying up the resources of west Africa or anywhere else, and taking fish from the mouths of those fishermen and families. Boats often run down and destroy local fishing boats. If we are to help those countries, we should buy fish from them and help them to build up their fishing and port industries.

The agreements are absolutely morally wrong, and we should not use our taxpayers’ money or European taxpayers’ money for them. That money very often goes not to the people of west African countries, but to their various Governments of various types. I shall be reasonably diplomatic—for me—and say that not much of that money gets to the indigenous population. It more likely lands up in Swiss bank accounts. I am blunt about that, because we know how governance in such countries often takes place.

The Minister is a great warrior, and I know he will go to Brussels and raise those points. It is time we stood up to be counted as a country within the EU and said enough is enough. One has only to go to Spain and see the amount of fish eaten there to see why they are so hungry for fish, but if Spain wants fish, it should buy them from those African countries, not plunder their waters at European taxpayers’ expense, which destroys the livelihoods of the fishermen and communities in those countries.

I urge the Minister to take strong action. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall is an expert on fishing and was able to describe the species and types of fish being caught. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish are being taken from Mauritania. It is completely and utterly indefensible.

Common Agricultural Policy

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for securing this debate, because it is important that we debate in this Chamber the future of agriculture, farming and the countryside.

I thank the Minister for being here. He has a difficult job ahead of him. I do not blame him for all our ills; the European Commission has got it entirely wrong. I have had some slight experience of the European Commission over 10 years. The Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner has got it absolutely wrong; we have to move to more competitive agriculture, and we must look after and manage the countryside well, but the policy that he is producing does not go in the right direction on either of those issues. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) that one size does not fit all.

Let me provide a brief history of the common agricultural policy. It arrived at the beginning of Europe, when the Common Market was made up of six countries, France and Germany being the dominant ones. This was after the second world war, when food was hugely important. For those five or six countries in the middle of Europe, it was much easier, given the type of crops they grew and their type of farming, to devise some sort of common agricultural policy. However, now there are 27 countries, covering from the north of Finland to the south of Greece, and including Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. There are hugely different types of farms—very small farms and very large state farms left over from previous communist systems, and private farms of various sizes throughout the rest of the European Union. If we also consider the different types of crops grown, and all the complicated subsidies introduced over the years—for cotton, olive oil, sugar and everything else—we begin to see the complexity of the matter. I agree that we need to ensure that we have an agricultural policy that suits this country. I know that the Minister is trying to work on that.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), mentioned fisheries, and he has a point. The Commission is offering more regional powers; whether it is giving those powers in reality is a matter for another debate, but it certainly needs to move in that direction.

Let me turn to the need for agriculture. There are now more than 7 billion people in the world. There is a moral duty to produce food, and for this country to do so. As global warming and climate change alter the growth that can take place in many other parts of the world, it becomes up to us to produce good food when we can. Also, we would otherwise have to import food. There is also the issue of the water used to grow food; many countries can ill afford to lose water. Whatever economic difficulties our nation has, we can afford to feed ourselves and buy food, but in many parts of the world, that cannot be done. We need to be conscious of that.

We must face up to the reality of where agriculture and farming are going in future; I hope that the Minister agrees with me. I think he does not want to do away with the single farm payment and support for agriculture overnight, but he does want agriculture to be weaned off public support, because we cannot accept, year after year, ever more public support for agriculture. We need competitive agriculture, and we can have it.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) talked about the poultry industry; the thing to remember about it is that it is competitive even though it is unsupported. It is not supported by the common agricultural policy, so it competes well. We have a successful poultry industry in this country.

[Dr Whiteford]

In recent months, the poultry industry has had to compete on an unfair basis, thanks to EU rules that have pulled the rug out from under it after it has invested heavily. While we are in the common market, the rules must be the same for everyone.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a travesty of justice that the rest of Europe has not complied with the requirements for enriched cages for producing eggs, but that is the fault not of this Government but of a weak European Commission that has not taken proper action against those member states that have not complied. No matter what the policy, it must be properly applied across member states, and not just by our country.

[Barry Gardiner]

I absolutely agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. He may be sympathetic to this suggestion: if we were to see the withdrawal of the direct payment subsidy, UK farms would do rather well, because they are better managed and more competitive than many in Europe. That would help our industry, as long as there were common standards with which everyone had to comply—a point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have very competitive agriculture, and our country can compete well. As we move on with agriculture, we will have to decide where to put what public support we have. There is an argument for some support in upland and difficult-to-farm areas, not only for agricultural production but in relation to the landscape; that is essential. We have to look at where we can create competitive agriculture.

That brings me on to regulation. I praise the Minister for bringing in Richard Macdonald to look at the regulation and to try to remove it from agriculture, so that the industry can be more competitive. However, although the Minister is busy removing regulation, the European Commission is busy applying more, even though the commissioners talk about wanting to get rid of regulation. All the reform will do is add more complication. We have talked about the 7% set-aside, the three or four crops and all the rubbish coming out of the Commission; we need to oppose that, and I know that the Minister intends to.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I make one point in defence of regulation, which is that there is good and bad regulation. There is over-regulation and over-complexity, but an area where the farming community has worked well—although we still need to do more—is on the water framework directive. When it comes to our rivers, the quality of the natural environment—something to which the Select Committee and its Chair must have turned their attention—has improved more than we could have imagined 10 years ago. There is good regulation as well as bad. We need to fear the bad, praise the good, and get on with delivering for this country.

[Neil Parish]

The shadow Minister is right that there is good regulation, but he must also admit that there is far too much regulation. It is not that regulation is good or bad, but that there is too much of it. The coalition Government are looking through regulation to weed out the unnecessary and keep the necessary. Over the years, we have built regulation on regulation; that has been the problem. Take farm inspections and other requirements, many of which we must comply with because of European regulation. We often have many different people on farms to inspect, so we are trying to bring in one inspectorate and not have as much duplication.

We ought to move towards a strong market in agriculture and agricultural products, which is why, as we can all agree, the groceries code adjudicator is so important. That may not be a European or CAP issue, but it is very much about ensuring that agriculture can compete in the market and get a fair deal from the marketplace. The crux of my argument is that if we are to wean farmers off subsidies over the years, we have to enable them to compete in that strong market.

Agriculture is important in itself—it is a huge part of the economy—but there are also 500,000 jobs in the food processing industry, and much of the food being processed comes from this country, as it should. Again, I am not exactly on the subject of the CAP, but I urge the Minister to look at how we procure food, and to ensure that all the food that we eat in this place—and everywhere else, including in Departments and in Westminster generally—is from this country. I assure the Chamber that in France people would not be eating British beef, so the last thing that we want to do here is eat French beef. That, however, is a particular pet subject of mine, so the Minister might not necessarily want to comment.

In my constituency, there is a lot of grassland and livestock, both sheep and cattle, including dairy cattle. Much of the livestock is fed on grass, a lot of which is on permanent grassland, but some is on semi-permanent grassland. What I fear most about Commission proposals is that we will see agricultural grassland ploughed up unnecessarily, because of worry about the reforms. The Minister is reassuring farmers and trying to obtain the best reassurances possible from the European Commission, because such a development would be almost criminal. We need to deal with it quickly, to ensure that the Commission does not drive agriculture in the wrong direction.

In the future, I want agriculture to stand much more on its own two feet. That has to be. Public support for agriculture should not distort trade between member states or with those in other parts of the world. We must not forget that one of the reasons for reforming the CAP has always been that previous policies promoted high production levels in Europe, and those products were then dumped on the open market, destroying much of the agriculture in developing countries. We have at least moved away from that, and we do not want to move back in that direction.

I wish the Minister well in his negotiations with the rest of the European Union. As a Government and as a country, we must seek greater independence when it comes to how we develop our agricultural policy. The European Union must recognise that as it has grown, and will probably grow further, it must have much more flexibility when it comes to agriculture, because one size will not fit all, especially as the EU grows bigger and bigger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Sheridan, for not being here for some of the debate. I have been trying to speak in the debate in the main Chamber. Being in two places at once is rather difficult. I wanted to have a say on the common agricultural policy, on which I have commented many times in the Chamber, and to take a rather more radical position than the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Government.

I was somewhat disappointed by the Select Committee report. It was written by well-intentioned and good people, but I am disappointed that it does not take a radical position. In some respects, I support the Government’s position more strongly than the Committee’s. The report says that the CAP no longer takes the lion’s share of the budget, but it is still 40%. What is a lion’s share? I think that 40% is pretty much a lion’s share.

The CAP is still a net cost to the UK, although not as high as it was, and food prices have been consistently higher for UK consumers ever since we joined the European Union, or the Common Market, as it was. Higher food prices are regressive, in that they bear more heavily on those who spend a higher proportion of their income on food, namely ordinary working people and the poor. In that respect, it has always been negative, certainly in terms of the people in Luton North whom I represent.

Access to cheaper food from elsewhere in the world has been restricted. Before the CAP, UK prices and national subsidies were related to lower world food prices, not to the higher prices demanded inside the CAP area. UK membership of the European Union has resulted in an excessive cumulative cost in both budget and taxpayer terms and in food prices, but it has also had a knock-on effect on economic growth. If one spends more of one’s wealth on subsidising agriculture, clearly less of one’s wealth can be used in other parts of the economy, and we have had lower growth overall as a result.

On numerous occasions, I have called for the abolition of the CAP. I keep pressing that point, because I believe that within the European Union, or whatever it might be called, national subsidies would be more appropriate. They would be better judged, because nation states know better what it is appropriate to subsidise within their own economies; their agricultural sectors are different and they would be much more likely to husband their resources carefully if it bore directly on their own taxpayers rather than coming from some great gift in the sky, namely a CAP budget contributed to disproportionately by countries such as Britain.

That would be more targeted and efficient. It would also cause countries to decide to what extent they want to keep their agriculture at the same level or increase its size for security reasons. The report makes the point well about food security for the future. If we as nation states were concerned about it, our food production would be better than it is under the CAP arrangement, which makes us casual about it all.

Britain in particular would do well to maximise its food production—not absolutely, but in order to ensure secure supplies for the future. I am possibly the only person here born during the second world war. I survived only because we managed to import food, mainly across the Atlantic. Many people died bringing that food. We learned that producing a higher proportion of our food domestically is important for reasons of long-term security. With the world’s population growing and food shortages likely, we cannot guarantee that that will not be necessary in future. Food security is important.

Britain is an efficient agricultural producer. Other countries are very inefficient. Increasing their efficiency would make their agriculture more profitable, and they would be able to sell it. In some cases, their wage costs are much lower. They could sell more to countries such as Britain as and when we decide to purchase. A national approach to agricultural subsidies is the way forward. The CAP is outdated and was never a good idea in the first place.

From time to time we have called for reform of the CAP, and some reforms have been made. I called for its abolition, but our leaders during the previous Parliament decided that they would seek serious reform. I remember that at the end of Britain’s last presidency of the European Union, Tony Blair went to the very last meeting in December, in theory to call for CAP reform. He was then beaten all around the room by President Chirac, coming back with no reform and a cut in our rebate. At the time, The Economist, hardly a magazine of the left, said that the deal was so bad that no deal would have been better. So much for reform. We must put pressure on the European Union. That is the only thing it reacts to.

[Neil Parish]

I think the mistake made by Prime Minister Tony Blair at the time was that he gave away the rebate without getting the reform. What he should have done, if he was going to give away the rebate, is get the CAP reform first. That was his mistake.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for all his work in getting this Bill into Parliament so that we can deliver the £50 saving to water rate payers in the south-west, because they are a hugely deserving cause, as one would expect me to say.

As other Members have said, although we have only 3% of the country’s population, we have 30% of its beaches. We welcome many holidaymakers to Devon and Cornwall—they are most wonderful places to go to, and I encourage every Member to do that—but of course people from throughout the country use those beaches, so a small share in the cost of cleaning them up and looking after them will be gratefully received, and is necessary and fair. I thank the Chancellor for getting the money through, because we inherited a very difficult financial situation from the previous Government. They had 13 years to sort this out in much better economic times; we have managed to find the money in very difficult economic times, and that is a worthy achievement.

We must look at the profile of the people who are having to pay those bills in Devon and Cornwall. A large percentage of the population are elderly, including a lot of people who have been retired for a long time, and may have retired on good incomes but have found that inflation and other things have taken away their buying power.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the average income per household in my constituency and the wider south-west is about £23,000, which is way below the national average?

[Neil Parish]

I do indeed. We have to look at the income profile of people’s salaries and wages. We rely a great deal on tourism, which, while it is essential for the whole area, is not necessarily the most highly paid industry in the country. It is right to give support to the people paying those bills.

The money that South West Water has made available to clean up the beaches is essential. Whatever the rights and wrongs of water privatisation, we must realise that before the industry was privatised, the infrastructure had not been dealt with. That meant that a huge backlog of work needed to be done on the sewerage works throughout Devon and Cornwall, and the cost of that was bound to impact heavily on water bills. In my constituency of Tiverton and Honiton there is a £2.8 million scheme to improve Cullompton sewerage works, which started last November and is due for completion in June. South West Water has also spent £340,000 on a scheme to enhance Allers water treatment works, and there is another scheme to enhance the Cullompton works. It is key that the company carries on putting the infrastructure in place so that we can get much cleaner beaches. We have beautiful countryside in Devon and Cornwall, but we should not forget that people mainly come for our beaches, so it is absolutely right to keep them clean.

We must consider those who are unable to pay their bills. There is a national cost of over £15 per bill to make up for those who cannot pay. The combination of those who cannot pay and those who will not pay is always the most difficult thing for Governments and companies to deal with.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) talked about businesses. The Bill covers not businesses but private households. Businesses need much more competition. I urge the Minister not to let the horses frighten him. At the moment, the companies are saying, “You can’t possibly give us more competition, because that will frighten away investment from the City.” We do not want to frighten away investment, but neither must we be frightened away from looking at where we could create greater competition. In Scotland there is one nationalised company for wholesale water, and retail companies that can compete with one another. With our privatised water companies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we can look into ways to create more competition and then get the bills down for businesses too. It is essential that businesses, as well as householders, in Devon and Cornwall should benefit. The trouble is that if we spread the money for the £50 reduction across businesses as well, householders would lose a significant amount of it.

We need South West Water to be clear about why it is putting its bills up by another £20 or so. Although that might be justified, we do not want it to eat significantly into the £50 that we have provided to help people with their bills. We must remember that the south-west has been singled out because it has the highest water bills in the country, mainly because of the cleaning up of the sewage works.

The final point that I want to raise is about the London tunnel and the sewerage works in London. Last week I made an intervention that caused one or two long faces among Opposition Members, but I shall repeat the point. One night, when I was travelling back from here on my bicycle towards Chelsea bridge, going into Battersea, there was a low tide and I could smell the sewage being pumped into the River Thames. I question whether that should be happening in 2012. A company, a farmer or anybody else who polluted in that way would be prosecuted. Is there one law for some and another law for others?

It is high time this issue was dealt with. I know that that involves a huge expensive infrastructure project, but in the 21st century it is essential to clean up the sewage that goes into the Thames. Every time there is a tremendous amount of rainfall, the sewage works cannot cope and out goes the sewage into the Thames. The water companies have the right to do that—whereas a business that did it would be prosecuted immediately. I am delighted that this project is to be undertaken. I know that parts of London do not welcome it because of how it will affect them, but for the greater good of the capital and of the Thames, it has to be done.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Does the hon. Lady think that the £50 a year for which the Bill provides until the end of the spending review period is adequate compensation for her constituents? It will undoubtedly be eaten up by the next two years-worth of price increases in cash terms.

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

Does the hon. Lady accept that this coalition Government have done more in 13 months than the Labour Government did in 13 years? We have 3% of the population in the south-west and 30% of the beaches, and that is why we have got these extreme costs. This Government have faced up to their responsibilities and delivered real cash to water bill payers, rather than just talking about it like the previous Government.

[Mary Creagh]

I am disappointed at the hon. Gentleman’s tone, because he is ignoring the fact that we commissioned the Walker report when we were in government. He is also ignoring the action we took, not least to prevent customers from being disconnected. I am sure that many of his constituents were affected in the early days of water privatisation when hundreds of thousands of customers were cut off—disconnected—from their water supply for non-payment of bills. We changed that. We changed the law and effectively instigated a right to water, which we think is a basic human right and is required for basic dignity and decency. I am sure that affected many people in the south-west.

The Bill is welcome because it lays down powers exercised by the Secretary of State to provide finance for the huge infrastructure investment that is needed to clean up the Thames, which has had very little investment since the great sewer drilled by Bazalgette 150 years ago. However, there are a number of questions that the Secretary of State must answer. First, why is the Bill so short? We are in a time of drought not seen in this country since 1976, so why is she focusing on the little picture rather than the big picture? Why was the water White Paper that was due in spring 2011 not published until December 2011? Her colleague the Minister with responsibility for water is now promising a draft water Bill this spring, so can she confirm that there will not be a full water Bill to take forward the other measures in Anna Walker’s report in the Queen’s Speech this May—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I commend his work in bringing his constituents’ concerns to the Select Committee and continuing to represent them now. Those of us who work in London during the week all wish to see the super-sewer in place, but we understand the length of time that it will take. There has not been an engineering project of that nature since, I think, 1858, and the Committee has no doubt about the impact that the sewer’s construction will have on his constituents and others.

The Committee’s wish, as recorded in our report, is for an amendable motion, and I am delighted that there is support for that. It may be within the gift not of the Minister but of the party managers, and looking further along the Treasury Bench I see how well represented they are today. I am sure that our point will be taken back to the highest possible authorities. I welcome, in passing, the Leader of the House’s commitment to allow more time for this debate.

At the conclusion of her speech, the Secretary of State made some remarks—on which, unfortunately, she would not take any interventions—about the amendment relating to planning, which will be of great interest to the Select Committee and, I am sure, to right hon. and hon. Members who live along the path of the proposed super-sewer. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to clarify those remarks.

On the waste water national policy statement, the Committee is pleased that the Government’s response to our report set out the areas where DEFRA has accepted our recommendations and consequently amended the NPS—for example, in line with our recommendation that the inclusion of a project in Ofwat’s asset management plan be removed as a criterion of proof of the need for the project.

[Neil Parish]

It is absolutely right that the planning process be taken into consideration. In my view, the Thames tunnel must go ahead, because when I was returning to Battersea from this House late one evening, cycling along the Embankment, the tide was low, and I could smell the sewage being pumped out into the Thames. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may turn their noses up, but I have smelt it, and we must do something about it.

[Miss McIntosh]

Given what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said as well, I do not think that the House is in any doubt about the need for the Thames tunnel super-sewer, but we should not underestimate how long the project will take and its cost. Concerns about rising costs, to which hon. Members alluded, were expressed in the evidence to the Committee.

Food Prices and Food Poverty

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, as there is no doubt about the conclusion that we should make—that there is a link between food prices and food poverty. It is apparent that the poorest in society will find high prices difficult, and we only have to look throughout the world to find that. As the population of the world reaches 7 billion, and moves towards 8 billion by 2030, we have a greater need to produce more food, and that is where I charge the previous Government, because for much of their final period in office they did not encourage food production. In fact they said, “We can import as much food as we like”; our home production did not matter.

We therefore need greatly to increase our food production in this country, and as other Members have said, we need to use biotechnology in order to do so and to reduce our use of fertilisers and pesticides. A blight-resistant potato is coming, and it could increase food production while dramatically reducing the environmental consequences of spraying potatoes, so there is much we can do, but we have to go forward and do it.

On the grocery code adjudicator, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is no longer in his place, missed the point. If these wonderful supermarkets are not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear from the adjudicator. The point of setting up the post of adjudicator is to put him or her in place so that, if there is abuse, it can be looked at. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants the role of the adjudicator introduced quickly, so we need to give the legislation parliamentary time. Farmers, growers and many other people in the food chain are often squeezed not only by the big supermarkets but by the big buyers in the chains, and that is why the adjudicator is so necessary.

I therefore very much welcome the debate and what the Government are doing to increase food production and ensure that common agricultural policy reform does not set aside more land and stop food production. There is a moral obligation to produce food not only for this country, but for the rest of the world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your time constraint.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I am certain that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has heard my hon. Friend’s words. I assure him that I entirely agree with him.

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

12. What support she is providing to rural communities to encourage enterprise and growth.

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

DEFRA is working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that measures designed to support business and the economy have a proportionate and positive impact in rural areas. On 29 November last year, the Government announced a strong package of new measures designed to stimulate sustainable growth in the rural economy and to help rural businesses to reach their full potential.

[Neil Parish]

Devon and Somerset are making a bid for £15 million of rural growth network funds. Tourism, farming and business can all come together, along with infrastructure, but it needs to be co-ordinated. I support their bid and would like the Government to consider it sympathetically.

[Richard Benyon]

I am aware that the local enterprise partnership has made a strong bid, but it is one of many—we are excited by the response—and I cannot say at this stage whether I prefer one over another. Nevertheless, I wish them the best of luck in the transparent process of being accepted as one of the pilot schemes.

Fisheries Council

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am delighted that we are able to report that there were considerable increases in stocks that will benefit fishing out of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and that we were able to invoke the Hague preference, which is of particular importance to fishermen in the north-east. We secured increases in whiting, which is of particular interest to his constituents, and I very much hope that we will be able to continue the scientific work that we are doing with fleets based in the north-east on a land-all system so that we can learn what a discard-free fishery means, following it right through the food chain.

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

I congratulate the Minister on standing up for British fisheries, and compliment him on the deal he got for cod in the western approaches. On the cod recovery plan, he should not have to defend our plan when we are stopping discards. Should we not get the Commission to endorse more of our plans, rather than having to defend them?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been some really good work in this country on reducing the number of discards, which was acknowledged by the Commission, so it was rather perverse that there was the possibility of measures being introduced that could have brought an end to precisely that good work. In his area, for example, Project 50% saw a more than 50% reduction in the number of discards in the beam trawler fleet. That would not have been possible under the proposed reduction in days that we were facing but luckily managed to reverse.