Broadband

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I think that the argument has gone even as far as state aid rules and whether Brussels was involving itself in the letting of contracts and whether being able to extend the existing contract with BT and BDUK was the best way forward. Those types of argument have been used. I am not against BT or what BDUK is doing, but I do feel that not enough competition has been brought into the system to keep BT and BDUK up to the mark.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue in Devon and Somerset now is not so much the delivery of the original contract, which is carrying on at its own pace—we are impatient, but it is happening—but the large areas in our constituencies that will not be covered by that contract and that need to catch up with the rest of the counties? I think that that will not be done through big contracts. It will be done through small, individual contracts, with new technologies such as wi-fi, rather than this approach, which I think will fail many people in rural areas.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He may well be right. One problem that we have with these large contracts—the situation is getting a little better—is that people do not actually know where the broadband will be delivered. If there is an alternative system—satellite, wireless or whatever—people do not necessarily know whether to put private funds into it, because they do not know whether BDUK will actually deliver it to their area. This is the frustrating part of what we are doing. We have all worked hard across the parties to get money. The MPs in Devon and Somerset all signed the letters to get the money and we delivered the money and have the contract, yet individual residents are not getting the broadband. Naturally, they do not like all these figures being bandied about for how much is being delivered if they do not have broadband themselves.

I understand that Connecting Devon and Somerset chose the route that it did because of the lack of bids and the concern over the state aid deadline, but I believe that more could have been done to open the market. At national level, there should have been more work to prevent one company from gaining such a monopoly on publically funded broadband roll-out as BT has achieved. Given the impact of flooding and sea damage on the west country’s transport infrastructure, the provision of high-quality rural broadband has never been more important to the resilience of the south-west and its communities and businesses.

I have a number of questions that I am sure the Minister will be keen to address. Does he believe that BT is providing value for money? I think that that is a very important question for the simple reason that I want to see everyone get broadband. I accept that some areas are very difficult to get to, but surely that is what these contracts are let for. We have to make absolutely sure that we are getting value for money.

Will the Government re-examine the universal service commitment of 2 megabits? What work is the Minister’s Department doing to ensure that survey information is made publically available and that BT is not hamstringing local authorities with spurious confidentiality agreements? What work are the Government doing to pilot new technology to reach the hardest-to-reach areas? Finally, will the Minister examine ways of making BT much more accountable?

A303

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is fighting the corner for Stonehenge, but if we improve the roads either side of Stonehenge, we will solve the Stonehenge issue. We do not want to say, as the previous Government did in many respects, that we will not spend any money on the A30/A303 unless the Stonehenge situation is sorted. I will support him all the way in whatever he wants to do to get his piece of the road done, but we should not let that be the piece that holds up the whole road. I will not necessarily throw all my rattles out of the pram—I will throw only a few of them—when the A30/A303 at the Honiton end, going east, is not the first part to be dualled. I believe that the dualling will happen, and it is right that it does. We are considering the long-term strategy for the south-west. The A30/A303 has to be part of that strategy. Businesses, the local enterprise partnerships and councils are all pulling together, which is amazing in itself, so let us not say that it has to be Somerset, Devon or Wiltshire. It has to be all of us pulling together.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need the Government to commit to a strategic plan for the whole A303 corridor. What part is done first depends on how quickly things can be worked up, how long the regulatory and planning processes take and all the rest of it. We know that some bits will be difficult and some bits will be easy, but we want the Government to commit to a comprehensive plan.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The improvements are set up in five pieces for five different areas. Some of those pieces will be easier to start than others. I urge the Minister to get on with it. We have talked for an awfully long time, and people want to see something happening on the ground. We could do with a bulldozer or a JCB sometime before 7 May 2015. I do not know what is happening on that day, and the Minister cannot possibly comment.

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

I understand. I am not trying to misrepresent the hon. Lady’s point of view. She opened her comments by saying that she was somewhat masochistic in expressing her view in a debate populated largely by people with agricultural interests.

If we can do anything to mitigate effects on agriculture and any other sphere, we should do so. If we can provide help with research and help the industry to help itself in reducing those effects, all the better. We want to put all those factors into the equation with the other undoubted benefits of extensive pasture and the societal changes in parts of the country where other forms of agriculture would be exceedingly difficult, or in areas where there is huge expertise, for example, in beef production. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) prayed in aid his Hereford cattle, and I thought there might be tension between those with Herefords and those with Aberdeen Angus cattle, but that did not arise. Let us join together in saying that this country is blessed with not only some of the best breeds of livestock, but some of the best livestock husbandry anywhere. I am proud of that, and it makes my job that much easier.

My final point is about industry development and supplementary requirements, and responds in part to the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton’s all-party group. Getting development of supplementary requirements under PAS 2050 and product rules under the greenhouse gas protocol product standard will help to bring consistency to carbon footprinting in the beef and sheep sector. EBLEX has taken the lead, and is a very effective levy-funded organisation. It is working on a UK-wide basis, which is relevant to some of the arguments about levy funding in the red meat sector, to produce the best possible advice and support for all producers throughout the United Kingdom, and I support it in that.

My hon. Friend and his all-party group have made some important points about the lack of consistency and the interpretation of the information we have to date. We accept that there is a lack of consistency. We want to improve that and to make the information as useful as possible because that will help the industry to move in the right direction in reducing as far as possible the emissions from agriculture and ensuring that we contribute as much as we can to our overall reduction in greenhouse gas. I hope we all support that. It is a principal feature of Government policy.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the Minister for his response. I want to put on the record the benefits of grass-fed beef and sheep production, and the fact that the amount of carbon stored in the soil balances the methane gas that the animals release. That is the particular point that I wanted the report to emphasise.

[Mr Heath]

I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend to make that final comment without running foul of the procedural rules. This debate has been extremely useful and interesting. The argument will continue to engage us, but we have made a valuable contribution today.

Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

As I have already said, I do not accept that there is any difficulty with split responsibilities. The responsibility for food safety lies entirely with the Food Standards Agency.

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

In this country, there are robust rules to separate the processing of beef and horse meat. Is that not the case in Ireland?

[Mr Heath]

That will be the subject of the investigations being carried out. The low-level contamination suggests that it may not have been through deliberate falsification of labelling. It may well be that it is simply cross-contamination by error, but I am sure that the Irish authorities will look carefully at this. We are co-operating with them as far as we can, and we are very eager to know the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

Let us just be clear for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman: if the infected tree is mature, as we are not in the period of sporulation there is no danger to surrounding trees, certainly not at the moment. The advice from the scientific advisers is that it is better to leave mature trees in situ than to fell them. The contrary advice applies to new planting saplings.

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

T7. The people of Halberton and the Environment Agency worked very well when the damage to the canal happened, preventing flooding from occurring throughout the village. However, I want to see better management of our waterways, through farmers and local communities managing water and helping to dredge the rivers, because we are not doing enough to stop the flooding.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Thursday 1st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Mr Havard, we are going to have an embarrassing degree of consensus in Westminster Hall today on an awful lot of this material, because we have very strong common ground across the political parties and across the nations and regions.

I must say that it was not always so. When agri-environmental schemes were introduced, I remember that in my part of the world in particular there was a huge outcry about the “imposition”, as it was described, of agri-environmental schemes on the Somerset levels. People were very upset about what was happening, and then effigies of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials were burned on the levels. We get very excited about these things in my part of the world—we are all revolting peasants at heart.

[Neil Parish]

indicated assent.

[Mr Heath]

My hon. Friend will agree with that contention, as I know where he comes from.

The confidence in agri-environmental schemes is, as the hon. Member for Ogmore says, the result of careful preparation and consideration, as well as ensuring that everybody understood not only what they were to do, but the reasons why they were to do it and why the schemes would have an effect.

That is partly the answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton about modulation. From our point of view, it is essential that we are able to ensure the continuation of these schemes, and the way that we can do that is to make sure that there are the funds within pillar two that enable us to maintain them. It is not just the agri-environmental stewardship schemes that matter, although they are important. It is also through one of the other things that she mentioned—the rural development programme for England—that we can deliver the other added benefits and the public good, by the use of modulated payments. We must be very conscious of that.

My hon. Friend also made a specific point about the exit from the schemes. I hope that the Government response to the Committee’s report set out the position of someone who has signed up to a 10-year involvement, which is clearly the legal position. However, if difficulties arise after we have concluded the negotiations and if the new schemes clearly require us to look again at transition, I will be happy to talk to her, the rest of the Select Committee and indeed other interested parties about that, to ensure that people are not penalised for something that is outwith anything that they might reasonably have expected. That is because my determination is that farmers who enter into agri-environmental stewardship schemes have the confidence that, in doing so, they are not shackling their businesses to something that they do not want to do and are not making a rod for their own back. Instead, they should have the confidence that the scheme will continue and will provide the support they need for them to do the things that they want to do, both in running their businesses on that land and in achieving the environmental benefits for the wider good. I happily give my hon. Friend that assurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about flexibility. That is certainly what we are trying to achieve. We want the flexibility to apply practical, effective and simple measures for our farmers. I thought that he ended a sentence in his speech with, “We want flexibility in the United Kingdom but not in other nations”. I thought, “Right. Yes, just stop there,” but I do not think that that is an achievable negotiating position. To be fair, he did carry on with his sentence.

Let us be absolutely clear: we want to achieve an environmental benefit across Europe, but we do not want to lose our high standards. We are engaging, therefore, with the European Commission, the European Parliament and other member states to ensure that there is flexibility in the EU’s approach to greening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton requested an update on the process. It will be extremely difficult to offer the precision that she requires. Many different views are being expressed within the Agriculture Council and the European Parliament, and much will depend on the outcome of the overall budget negotiations. As Members have already said, until that budget is completed we will not know what the quantum is, and it would be difficult to resolve many of the CAP issues without knowing the size of that envelope.

There is a move by the Cypriot presidency to achieve a partial general agreement, before the end of the year and the end of its EU presidency. Such an agreement will come about only if we are satisfied that we have something that is sustainable in all its senses, and as far as the UK is concerned I think that we are some distance from that. I expect—this is no more than an expectation—that it is more likely that we shall come to a conclusion during the Irish presidency, following the conclusion of the budget round.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked whether we have allies. Yes, we do. As always with European negotiations, there is a constantly changing kaleidoscope on different issues, but there are member states that clearly understand our points about flexibility and complexity and about how we can achieve the results, rather than focusing on an incomplete understanding of how we can best achieve better environmental benefits across Europe. It would probably be unhelpful at this stage in the negotiations to be numbering our friends and our enemies, because someone’s friend on one issue will often be their opponent on another.

Let me make it plain that we are not opposed to the concept of greening if it delivers greater public benefits from taxpayer expenditure. That is our clear position—the hon. Member for Bristol East made that point—and we want it to be achieved in a way that recognises the wide diversity of agriculture around the European Union. I just do not believe in the one-size-fits-all approach. It is hard to find such an approach even within the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said. Circumstances are different within England itself, with a hill farm in the Pennines being different from a cereal farm in East Anglia, and different parameters apply. I entirely agree with the EFRA Committee’s view that a one-size-fits-all approach might lose its relevance when applied to particular circumstances, and certainly when applied to our own.

Each of the areas proposed by the Commission initially, which were crop diversification, the retention of permanent pasture and the need for a proportion of land to be designated as ecological focus areas, has the capacity to divide opinion—informed opinion, because of exactly the points that Members have made today. Each measure contains the essence of a good idea—there is something there in the initial thinking—but the environmental benefits are not clear when the proposals are considered in the light of our own circumstances. I know that many other European Union member states are forming the same view, particularly when the supposed benefits are considered in the light of the costs and complexities of implementation. It is not obvious that the money should be spent in a way that more demonstrably delivers complexity rather than environmental benefit, which is crucial.

It is fair, and not unkind to Commissioner Ciolos, to say that a particularly remarkable aspect of the greening debate in Brussels is the fact that the Commission seems to have few, if any, supporters for the precise way forward that it has proposed. I would take some comfort from that if I saw a majority in favour of an alternative, but at the moment there are only many minorities.

Some countries have yet to be convinced about the basics, about the further shift towards paying farmers for delivering environmental public goods. They see ideals that we have long shared in this country as an expensive luxury at a time of economic difficulty, and we have to be alive to that view. There are attempts by some to water the proposals down and exempt the majority of their farmers. It is funny how definitions always exempt a member state’s own farmers from their effects—that is known as greenwashing. There are issues about greening by definition, and we do not want this to be a badge of convenience, with people carrying on exactly as before but with the application of greater funding, as that cannot be in anyone’s interest.

[Neil Parish]

The Minister makes an interesting point. There are cases in Europe of people wanting to exempt small farmers from a lot of the conditions. In countries where the majority of the land is made up of very small farms, all the greening aspects get taken out because the farmers are ruled out of them.

[Mr Heath]

Precisely so. Time and again people pay lip service to a “very good idea” but somehow it then does not apply to their own circumstances. We have to be wary of that and not fall into the same trap.

If we are to go down a route of some form of greening by definition—to which there is some advantage, in reducing complexity and allowing for easier systems—it has to be on the basis of something that shows the environmental benefit. I would argue, for instance, that our stewardship schemes do that. We could demonstrate beyond anyone’s reasonable doubt that our environmental schemes show a clear commitment to environmental benefits on the land within their compass. If we extend the self-definition too far, however, we get to the point at which simply having a hedge is sufficient qualification to be a greened farm. That is not an adequate definition.

Other member states share our view that this is basically the right direction for the CAP to be moving in, but that the Commission’s proposals are too blunt, too inflexible and too complex in their implementation. We have heard a few examples of that. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked about the definition of “active farmer,” and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) pointed out that quite a lot of Scotland is not farmed as intensively as most parts of England because of the nature of the ground. Yes, that is true, but the Scots have a case with, for instance, grazed heather, and we are helping to press that case strongly in the negotiations on behalf of the Scottish Government, with whom we have very close contacts, as we do with the other devolved Administrations.

With tenants, there is a question of who is the active farmer. It is far more important to identify the activity, rather than the status, of the person doing the farming. I hope we can move in that direction. I have already mentioned hill farming, and in the negotiations we have to be alive to the interests of less favoured areas. I said as much when I was in Cumbria recently and, not surprisingly, I received a measure of support, but we have to be conscious of the fact that there are many different types of farming, and we need to have something that, as far as possible, can accommodate those differences.

The hon. Member for Ogmore and others mentioned capping—I am sorry, but I cannot remember who provided the response. With the proposals on capping and young farmers, for instance, it is all too easy for lawyers simply to adjust the holding to fit the policy, rather than change what is happening. I am wary of that. I want to maintain the incentives, the competitiveness and all the rest. Although I can sometimes see the advantages of such proposals, I do not want the nominal ownership of an enterprise to be changed simply to create a money stream that would not otherwise be there, because that is not in the interests of efficient farming or the objectives that we have set.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The national minimum wage is doing a good job of putting a floor under wages in this country, and I see no reason to have extra bureaucracy on top of that.

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

2. What steps his Department is taking to support the dairy industry.

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

The Dairy Supply Chain Forum and the Dairy 2020 initiative are focused on the future of the industry and opportunities to boost growth and exports. After months of hard work, not least by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), the many beneficial terms of the industry code of practice can be translated into contracts. Implementing the EU dairy package will provide new opportunities for innovation and collaboration, and £5 million of additional funds from the rural development programme for England are available for high-quality projects from the dairy industry.

[Neil Parish]

Dairy farmers in my constituency are facing high feed costs. Consumers are paying enough for milk, but not enough of that end price goes back to the famer. What more can we do?

[Mr Heath]

I am optimistic that with the voluntary code we have for the first time the basis to be fair to producers, processors, retailers and consumers. I want to make that stick, and I believe that it can make a real difference. As I have said all along, if the voluntary code is not successful, we have the opportunity to bring forward a statutory code, and I will consult on that later this year if necessary.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Neil Parish and David Heath

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great honour to make a few points in the summer Adjournment debate. I begin by suggesting to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that perhaps there should be a small redistribution of wealth from the BBC to ITV. We should remember that it also does a good job.

Let me move quickly on to the subject of South West Water charges. In my constituency—in my view, it is as beautiful as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—the charges are significantly higher, because we have 30% of the beaches and only 3% of the population to pay the extra charges. I should like the Government to consider some form of national levy requiring people from all over the country to pay for the beaches that they come to enjoy. We welcome them when they come to enjoy those beaches, but we do not think that the retired people of the South West Water area should pay the extra charges. It would mean bills in the South West Water area falling by about £65 to £75, yet the national levy would be in the region of £1.50. I ask the Government to look at this sympathetically.

On Tiverton high school, let me first say that I understand that the coalition Government have of course had to cut back on the Building Schools for the Future programme because there was no money left. We know that that is the case, and I shall not repeat it too often. We need to be sure that we can build schools in the future, and that the money we put into capital spending actually goes into building schools and not on administration, as 20% to 30% did under BSF. I ask Ministers that when money becomes available, Tiverton high school is not forgotten, because that would be good not only for the high school, but for a part of Tiverton that needs regeneration.

I want now to talk about the A303/A30.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Hear, hear.

[Neil Parish]

I thought the Deputy Leader of the House might say that as the A303 also runs through his constituency. In Cornwall, we have trunked the whole A303—or A30 as it is down there. That is excellent of course, but by the time many people get to Cornwall they will have passed through Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon. We have to make sure that we trunk the road through Somerset into Devon, and around Honiton in particular, where there is a bad bottleneck. When people get to Honiton, they can link into the dual carriageway that takes them on to Exeter and beyond. It would be great if we could get this done. In 1997, the road was all ready to be built, but then—lo and behold—we got a Labour Government who immediately stopped it. As the plans are all ready, we could go ahead and build this straight away if we had the money.

My constituency has the two hospitals of Tiverton and Honiton, and we have maternity units in both of them. Prior to the election, services were cut in Honiton and they have been stopped in Tiverton. I want to ensure that those maternity services are reintroduced, because it is absolutely right that we not only have midwives to help with home births, but that mothers can choose to give birth in hospital as well. I therefore make that great plea.

I want there to be more competition with BT in the rolling out of broadband into rural areas. At present BT is dictating the speed at which it is being rolled out, and it is currently not being rolled out at all across many rural areas. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment to helping communities roll out broadband.

The need to take decisive action on tuberculosis in cattle is an issue dear to the hearts of many of us in rural areas. We spend more than £100 million a year on taking out diseased cattle, yet we are not tackling the disease in wildlife. I welcome the commitment of the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that we look at ways in which we can cull infected badgers so that cattle are not re-infected.

My final point is about Zimbabwe, which is, I accept, a long way from my constituency, but many of my constituents come from that country and I was an election observer there in 2000. Zimbabwe is still staggering on, and I hope our coalition Government prove to be more effective than the current coalition Government in that country. I plead with the Government to look in future at helping Zimbabwe to have a proper audit of the farms and farmland there. Zimbabwe could feed both itself and quite a lot of Africa, but at present it cannot even feed itself because that land is not being farmed and not being looked after. The ownership of these farms is now often not for the sake of farming the land, but just for the sake of having property, and that should be investigated.