Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We have made a number of changes and are working very hard to deal with the current problems with countryside stewardship, and progress has been made. I would simply say that we are not blaming the European Union. It is true that it has changed the rules so that all agreements must be processed simultaneously, whereas they used to be processed across the year, which has caused major administrative problems both for the Government and for farmers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Only 49% of the food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK, while our annual trade deficit on food and drink is now £23 billion a year and rising. What is the Secretary of State doing to address these challenges to our national security and economic sustainability?

[George Eustice]

The UK’s current food production-to-supply ratio is actually 76% for indigenous-type foods and 60% for all foods. That is not low by historical standards and has been relatively stable in recent years. However, we want to have a vibrant, successful, profitable food and farming industry, and our recent consultation sets out some thoughts to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Gainsborough, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, was asked—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

6. To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, what criteria the National Audit Office used to establish the timescale for its investigation into the cancellation of rail electrification projects by the Department for Transport; and if he will make a statement.

[Julian Knight (Solihull)]

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission.

The National Audit Office’s investigation published in March 2018 sets out factually the sequence of events leading up to the Department for Transport’s announcement in July 2017, cancelling the three electrification projects in response to concerns raised about the decision-making process. As such, the majority of the report is focused on the period up to, and including, July 2017 when the Department announced its decision. The investigation also considered the Department’s assessment of the subsequent impact of its decision on promised benefits. The facts in the report were agreed by the Department and reflect evidence that was provided to the NAO.

[Mr Hollobone]

I congratulate the National Audit Office on its report, but why did the investigation not seek to evaluate either the value for money of the projects or the decision to cancel?