Dead Crustaceans (North-East Coast)

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We are going to move straight on to the next debate. Will Members who are leaving please do so quickly and quietly? We are going to discuss the important issue of dead crustaceans on the north-east coast.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered dead crustaceans on the North East coast.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Hollobone. I seem to get you in the Chair quite a lot when I have debates. It is good to see you there.

Our fishing industry in north-east England has been dealt a huge blow in recent months, with catches decimated and businesses on the edge of ruin. The mass die-offs and the reason behind them have been causing serious concern along the north-east coast since the first dead sea creatures were discovered in the early morning of 6 October last year.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has held several calls with local MPs and I recognise its efforts to engage with us. However, there is still a huge amount of concern among our constituents, many of whom feel that the Government have not gone far enough in their investigations and that it is high time Ministers stepped up and provided some financial support to the industries that have been so severely impacted.

DEFRA has not updated its conclusions since last November, when it settled on the hypothesis that a rare algal bloom had caused the deaths. Even then, it was reported that DEFRA had not found one single causative factor, but rather that:

“A harmful algal bloom present in the area coincident with the event was identified as of significance.”

I am aware that the investigation by the Environment Agency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Marine Management Organisation did examine other possibilities, such as licensed dredging, chemical contamination, activities related to offshore wind farms and aquatic animal disease. The investigation was closed after live and healthy crabs and other crustaceans were found in more recent catches.

However, the die-offs are still ongoing. We had one last December, another this February and a big one in April, with the most recent one occurring just two weeks ago. There is a real sense among the communities affected that the Department has not addressed the later die-offs, especially as the algal bloom was not definitively identified as the cause even back in the autumn.

It was for that reason that I wrote last month to the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is here today, requesting that the inquiry be reopened. To my deep disappointment, my request was refused by her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I have therefore brought the issue to this Chamber in the hope that the voices of the affected communities will now be listened to.

The local fishing industry are still reporting higher than average amounts of dead crustaceans in its catches. I am told that fishermen from Hartlepool, Redcar and Whitby are still returning negligible catches from our inshore waters. Just last week, a crew set off from Hartlepool with 50 pots to catch lobsters. When they retrieved the pots, there were only four lobsters; of those four, only one was alive. I heard of another crew whose total catch was one crab and seven lobsters. Again, three lobsters were dead and two of the living lobsters were on their backs, already dying.

Considering those numbers, it seems that the decision to close the investigation was premature, and that it is possible that there is more to this issue than the hypothesised algal bloom—something the North East Fishing Collective also believes to be the case.

Deposit Return Scheme

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair. I should also like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission for this debate, and to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to her place on the Front Bench.

The issue before us today is Her Majesty’s Government’s proposed deposit return scheme for drinks containers, whereby consumers will pay a small levy upon purchasing a drink, which is then refunded once the container is returned to a collection point. Specifically, I wish to raise my serious concern that glass bottles are to be excluded from the scheme. The omission of glass represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink container pollution. It also represents the direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the last general election, when we said in the manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drinks containers. I wish to use this debate today to urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify this as a matter of urgency and to immediately revisit the scheme’s design so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

In 2019, the Conservative party laid out its ambitions for the future of our country in its election-winning manifesto, which attracted 60% support in the Kettering constituency. Central to our aspirations was positioning Britain as a world leader in rising to the environmental challenges that are facing our planet today. One of the challenges identified was how we manage and process waste, and in particular, combating the growing problem of discarded waste, of which drinks containers are a large part. In that manifesto, the Conservative party outlined plans for a world-class deposit return scheme for drinks containers in a bid to minimise their impact on the environment. The manifesto said:

“We will crack down on the waste and carelessness that destroys our natural environment and kills marine life. We will introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hollobone]

I would be honoured and delighted.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. In my council area of Ards and North Down, the council has a strategy and a plan of action for recycling. It includes many kinds of recycling and it tries not to leave anyone out of any part of it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that glass needs to be part of that programme, and that that needs to be a commitment. In my council area, each household has a glass return system and a plastic basin to put the glass into. They can also go to recycling centres, which are probably no further than three miles from any person. Those are examples of what we are doing in Northern Ireland, where there is a clear commitment, a strategy and a plan through the council, and across the Northern Ireland Assembly as well. Would he like to see more of those kinds of strategies?

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful and interesting intervention, and I commend his local council for its recycling efforts. There are similar schemes across the four nations, but as I will come on to later in my remarks, the problem with leaving glass out of the deposit return scheme is that it will be a missed opportunity to increase overall glass recycling rates to the best international standards. At the moment, my understanding is that the Government’s proposal for the deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland will be different from the deposit return schemes in Scotland and Wales, which will include glass. One of the difficulties is that there will be different deposit return schemes in different parts of the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, to illustrate the point and support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the recycling schemes in our council area have, in a way, reached their peak. That is a problem. I think he is referring to something that I would fully support—I know the Minister will give her comments on the matter later—which is some way of raising awareness of the fact that there would be a reimbursement advantage for people who are prepared to recycle their glass. In anticipation of what the Minister will say, I will take a copy of the Hansard report of this debate and make sure that I show it to the relevant Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly so that they can do the very same.

[Mr Hollobone]

As usual across so many issues, the hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page. My contention is that the United Kingdom will not be able to achieve the best international glass recycling levels unless glass is included in the deposit return scheme.

As Conservatives, we made a vow to voters to introduce a scheme that serves the public and Britain’s precious natural habitats. However, Her Majesty’s Government have so far committed to introducing, by 2024, a deposit return scheme across England and Northern Ireland inclusive of only plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Glass is a glaring omission.

A huge 86% of respondents to the Government’s first consultation on the deposit return scheme said they want glass to be included but, despite this overwhelming majority support from technical experts, charities, scientists and the great British public, calls for glass to be included have been ignored.

The scheme’s current design falls well short of what was promised and will see it fail to achieve what is required. A deposit return scheme that excludes glass runs the risk of being a global embarrassment for a country that seeks to position itself as leading from the front on environmental issues. In its current form, the scheme’s design will fail to crack down on glass waste and will miss a wonderful opportunity to protect our natural environments from glass pollution.

The case has been made that including glass is problematic. However, this case has been made by glass industry lobbyists who have a vested interest in ensuring glass containers are not included in such a scheme. One such argument is that glass, once collected, can be hazardous and dangerous for those charged with sorting it for recycling when it becomes broken. This works both ways, as it can also be argued that glass poses a greater risk to the public and pet owners when it breaks down in nature rather than in the controlled environment of recycling plants.

The lack of a deposit return scheme for glass containers poses a very real risk that such containers will continue to end up on our pavements and in our parks and outdoor spaces, where they will be a health and safety risk to UK residents. This public safety danger is unmatched by other containers. In that regard, the scheme’s current proposal fails to protect both the environment and the British public.

Additionally, glass industry lobbyists have suggested that the inclusion of glass will drive consumers towards purchasing highly polluting plastic bottles. However, with the public already widely aware of the prevalence and environmental impact of plastic pollution, I contend that these claims are speculative at best. If we are to tackle the waste crisis, we must trust consumers to do the right thing, but it is vital that we arm them with the tools to do so.

British Glass responded to the Government’s consultation, which closed on 4 June 2021, citing various concerns that have little foundation, one of which is that the inclusion of glass would have a detrimental impact on closed-loop glass recycling, despite the industry’s present inability to increase glass recycling rates. Indeed, British Glass explained in its response how the industry is committed to a 90% collected for recycling rate, and to an 80% remelt target by 2030 that would see 80% of all glass recycled back into new bottles and jars, but the stark reality is that this goal will almost certainly never be realised.

By global standards, the UK lags well behind its international counterparts in the collection and recycling of glass bottles, sitting behind countries such as Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Bulgaria. In 2020, the UK’s glass collection rate for recycling stood at just 76%, well below Italy, which boasts a recycling rate for glass bottles of 87%. Meanwhile, across the UK, it is estimated that 5 billion glass bottles are used each year. Under current recycling rates, this means some 1.2 billion glass bottles each and every year are destined to litter our environment or to languish in landfill.

Current systems to raise our collection and recycling rates are lacking. Much of the glass collected across the UK is not suitable for closed-loop recycling, where discarded bottles are turned back into new ones. That is due to the current collection process, which often sees the mixing of different colours and crushing during transportation. However, a well-thought-out, properly prepared deposit return scheme can address these issues with separated collection methods, which will make closed-loop recycling far more viable. That should be considered as a point of urgency, as it is estimated that a well-designed scheme for the UK could improve recycling rates for bottles and cans to more than 90%. At the same time as the Government are also presently consulting on the consistency of kerbside collections in England, with the laudable aim of reducing confusion, through their DRS plans they are paving the way for potentially four different deposit systems to be in place in the UK. Potential confusion among consumers caused by the current design is likely to undermine the effectiveness of England and Northern Ireland’s scheme. Both Scotland and Wales are set to see glass included in their schemes, but a lack of consistency across the UK as a whole, where consumers cross borders routinely, could see us fail to raise glass recycling rates to the levels they need to be, because consumers will not know when and where glass containers can be disposed of. The DRS for drinks containers should be designed with a view to avoiding this confusion and instead empowering the public to do the right thing.

British consumers are overwhelmingly in favour of a scheme that includes all beverage materials and are opposed to the exclusion of glass bottles. A Populus poll commissioned in 2020 by environmental organisation Nature 2030 found some 84% of Britons want all beverage containers to be included in the Government’s proposed scheme. That polling was welcomed by campaigners and academics, who outlined how a comprehensive deposit return scheme will give us the best chance to combat litter. What is vital, and something the Government must not ignore, is that the UK is not walking into unproven territory as it looks to deliver its own scheme; a host of countries have already implemented successful and highly efficient deposit return schemes inclusive of all materials. Those have been proven to dramatically increase collection and recycling rates, and can be used as a powerful template for Britain to follow in implementing its own scheme. Crucially, due to their success, those other international schemes prove that the issues raised by the glass industry lobbyists here are unfounded. Indeed, all-inclusive schemes are common across the world. From more than 40 such schemes globally, only three do not include glass bottles and they exclude glass because they already have in place a returnable system specifically for glass bottles, something that the UK currently lacks. Australia implements a deposit return scheme that also covers beverage cartons, while Canada’s scheme includes cartons, bags in boxes, and plastic pouches. Finland and Denmark, which are considered to implement world-class return schemes, enjoy incredibly high return rates of 94% and 92% respectively. These successes are widely regarded as being due to their systems being inclusive of all materials, with the simplicity of the system being crucial to achieving the public support needed for these schemes to be a success.

In my view, it makes little sense to deviate from such successful schemes, and even less sense when Scotland and Wales are looking to mirror the international successes. For example, Scotland is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass bottles by August 2023, while Wales is set to introduce a scheme that includes glass by 2024. It is vital to ensure interoperability among the schemes and to help consumers to adopt consistent and responsible behaviour across the four nations of the UK. Not only is the Government’s derisory decision to omit glass seeing us fail to be a world leader on the waste crisis on a global scale, but we are falling well behind Scotland and Wales.

In an open letter, some 25 experts in the field recently urged the Government to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers that mirrors Denmark’s system. Cross-party politicians, non-governmental organisations and academics are calling for the Government’s scheme to include all materials, including glass, plastic and aluminium. Denmark has a track record of fine-tuning its own scheme to be as effective as possible. It is a ready-made road map that the UK could follow and would help us to avoid the potential pitfalls that we may encounter along the way if we follow our own bespoke path.

I also wish to raise the issue of VAT. The Government currently plan to apply VAT to deposit return scheme deposits on top of the VAT already charged on the drink. The current expectation is that, if there were a 20p charge, it will be gross of VAT—that is, 17p plus 3p—which means that, if the customer does not return the drinks container that they buy, the producer will receive only 17p back instead of the full 20p. The Government will take the remaining 3p in VAT. If we factor in the estimated 28 billion containers on the UK market, that could mean as much as £185 million lost from the scheme through unredeemed deposits—assuming an 80% return rate—in the first year alone. That would create a situation in which the Government in effect end up profiting from the failure of their own deposit return scheme. What is more, adding VAT to the deposit fee effectively imposes a stealth tax on drinks producers, backing the industry into a corner and creating the real scenario of price rises for the products in question.

If the Government are serious about introducing a scheme, they need to avoid the noise from glass-industry lobbyists and deliver a scheme that works for the environment. Pandering to industry calls makes little sense in the face of overwhelming public support for glass to be included. Furthermore, there is a health and safety risk. Glass is a high-carbon, highly polluting material that presents a real hazard to the public once it is discarded in public places. We should look to create a scheme that drives up the collection and processing of such material, rather than one that makes closed-loop glass recycling more unattainable.

In conclusion, the omission of glass from the Government’s deposit return scheme represents a real and serious threat to the effectiveness with which a deposit return scheme in England and Northern Ireland can realistically be delivered. Quite simply, its exclusion would be a potential catastrophe for our natural spaces as we all look to stem the tide of drink-container pollution. It also represents a direct betrayal of a promise made by the Conservative party to voters at the most recent general election, when we said in our manifesto that we would introduce a deposit return scheme for both plastic and glass drink containers. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency and immediately revisit the design of their scheme so as to include drinks containers made from glass.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important point. The Church is partnering the Government in hosting many of the Ukrainian refugees for whom his constituents are quite properly caring.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

6. To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church of England is taking to support family relationships, parenting and marriage.

[Andrew Selous]

It is precisely because the Church of England recognises the profound importance of families, parents and marriage that the archbishops have set up a commission on families and households, which will make recommendations to both the Church and wider society on how we can strengthen these vital relationships.

[Mr Hollobone]

According to a recent report from the Centre for Social Justice,

“Marriage has become a middle-class secret. Among high income couples…83% have tied the knot; among low-income parents…only 55% are married. This ‘marriage gap’ is a social justice issue”.

Is the Church of England concerned about that, and if so, what is it going to do about it?

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an extremely important social justice issue. The Church is indeed concerned about it, which is why the archbishops established the commission. Evidence shows that 50% of unmarried men cite cost as a reason for not marrying. I think we can learn from the churches that have often provided not only a service full of love and meaning but free, individually tailored wedding dresses, with the congregation helping with food, drink and flowers. Actions like these can ensure that the joys of marriage are shared equally across every income group. However, the current situation should concern us all.

Food Security

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. NFUs across the UK have been calling for that for some time. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s answer to that point. Another consequence of Brexit is that UK farmers will miss out on access to the EU’s proposed €1.5 billion fund to counter food insecurity. The SNP thinks that food security funds equivalent to what UK farmers would have received as part of the EU should be established immediately; that would certainly go towards helping some of the problems that farmers and agricultural industries are experiencing at the moment. The funds should be appropriately allocated to the different Governments of the four nations.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West pointed out yesterday to the Prime Minister, we must also make serious efforts to cut down on our food waste. Over 2 million tonnes of edible food is wasted on farms and in factories every year. There was a scheme introduced in 2019 to help farmers get food to charities and reach those in need; it was successful but its funding has not been renewed. I am hoping that the Government and the Minister will be able to give us some assurance that they are listening to the calls from Feeding Britain, Good Food Scotland and FareShare that those initiatives be continued.

Many of us have been warning about our food security for years, particularly in the face of Brexit. Frankly, it always seemed like we were being ignored. The crisis in Ukraine has dramatically thrust this issue centre stage. However, we have to remember that there were systemic issues both at home and abroad. We need to build resilience into the farming system for the long term, not lurch from one crisis to the next—as the Sustain alliance rightly says. I am fully aware that this is a very difficult balancing act for all Governments, but the thistle must be grasped. The consequences of failing to act are just too terrible to contemplate.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 4.30 pm. There are seven Members seeking to contribute and I want to ensure that everybody gets in, so we will have a six-minute limit. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 3.58 pm and the guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and then Deidre Brock will have two or three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. So we have a six-minute limit straightaway. I call Neil Parish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

If I get an extra minute for doing so.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady does not get an extra minute, but it is her decision whether she wishes to give way.

[Kerry McCarthy]

In that case, I will not give way.

When I look at the trends in the global food system, my view is that it is broken. It has become incredibly reliant on huge agribusinesses that engage in heavily intensive practices that are massively destructive to the environment. There have recently been reports that the global food giant Cargill has refused to pull out of Russia, and it has repeatedly been linked to deforestation in the Amazon. JBS is another huge agribusiness that is complicit in rampant deforestation and modern slavery on Brazilian ranches. We should not be dependent on global food corporations that churn out poor-quality, mass-produced food that is bad for human health, global security and the planet.

Obviously, one of the solutions is to grow more at home. I was very pleased that the Minister met me the week before last to talk about peri-urban farming. Ideally, the Government will meet their pledge to put more money into county farms, which was made some years ago. I am slightly worried that it has dropped off the agenda, but I am pleased that the Minister is taking up some of the points that we make. The shorter supply chains are, the better, so that we can grow food closer to home and cut out food miles as well. We need to support agroecology, and we also need to tackle food waste, as I have said many times.

The final point I want to make is about supporting some of the sectors that do not get talked about. There is a big focus on red meat and dairy in this country. When I went to meet representatives of Pulses UK, it was the first time they had met a politician for such a long time. We can grow so many pulses and legumes in this country, and we can also use them to make more innovative products. One of the things that that side of the industry is crying out for is support on research and development, so that it can develop value-added products. In the industrial strategy, food barely gets a mention. If the Minister could take one thing away, I would urge her to look at how we can support farmers to grow more here, to sell more here and to flourish.

Badger Culling

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate can last until 6 o’clock.

Northern Ireland Border

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Northern Ireland protocol had a number of requirements, including that there should not be unnecessary checks on goods going from GB to Northern Ireland, ensuring that that trade could continue, and ensuring that the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions were respected. That is why the UK Government are seeking some changes and modifications to the way in which it is interpreted. Finally, it is not for the European Commission to unilaterally interpret what the Northern Ireland protocol means: its interpretation must be bilaterally agreed.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Two years on from Brexit and seven months on from the Command Paper, which made it clear that there were sufficient requirements for article 16 to be triggered, with continued disruption to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and with completely unnecessary checks, does the Secretary of State share my hope that the action taken today in Northern Ireland might be the wake-up call that the European Union needs to finally realise that the protocol is undermining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and that it should negotiate its replacement sooner rather than later?

[George Eustice]

We have consistently made clear through our negotiations with the European Union that the UK Government are motivated on this issue solely by our defence of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is because we want to stand behind it and protect the peace that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has brought that we seek the changes to the Northern Ireland protocol.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As the hon. Lady may know, I worked in the soft fruit industry before coming into politics, so I am very familiar with the soft fruit industry in Scotland. It is one of the reasons why the Government have put in place the seasonal workers scheme, and we have had such a scheme since the second world war. Last year, we had a scheme with 30,000 visas, but only just over 25,000 were required. Many settled EU citizens will also continue to return to do seasonal work and we judge that 30,000 is probably the right number.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of his authorisation of the use of the pesticide thiamethoxam in certain circumstances on the bee population.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The emergency authorisation of thiamethoxam has been granted for sugar beet, which is a non-flowering crop so there is no direct risk to bees. However, due to the risk that thiamethoxam can stay in the soil for a period, we impose strict conditions on authorisation, including a requirement not to sow other flowering crops such as oilseed rape in the same field for at least 32 months.

[Mr Hollobone]

Residents in the Kettering constituency want to see a larger and healthier bee population, but they do not want the England sugar beet crop destroyed by aphids. Will the Secretary of State outline the economic impact on sugar beet production if that pesticide is not used and what examination he has undertaken of alternative means of controlling aphids?

[George Eustice]

As part of our assessment of emergency authorisations, we consider the economic impact, and it is considerable. The sugar beet industry is an important crop for this country. As hon. Members will be aware, 12 other EU countries have also granted an emergency authorisation for sugar beet, so it is a common approach across Europe, but we have taken many steps to ensure that there is no risk to pollinators.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I know that there are the benefits that he mentions from growing hemp. Licences for medical hemp is an issue that the Home Office leads on, but it is an interesting crop; more people are starting to look at it and grow it. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I welcome the proposals in the Act for biodiversity net gain, with an obligation on developers to ensure that all new proposals feature at least a 10% improvement in biodiversity. In the guidance that the Secretary of State issues, will he ensure that that obligation applies to planning applications that are already in the pipeline, not just new applications?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Biodiversity net gain will be an important policy tool to support work in local nature recovery strategies and make space for nature in new developments. On his point about timing, I think the measure will take effect in 2023 and will apply at that point to applications going for determination when it is active.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

6. What the planned timescale is for the Government’s response to the National Audit Office’s report, “Financial sustainability of schools in England”, published in November 2021.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)]

In November, the National Audit Office produced an important report examining the financial sustainability of schools in England, which complemented its report on school funding in England in July 2021. The Government will respond to the expected Public Accounts Committee report on school financial sustainability after it is published.

[Mr Hollobone]

I welcome the Public Accounts Committee’s scrutiny of the financial sustainability of schools. This is an important report by the National Audit Office, and it shows that 22% of academy trusts had reserves equivalent to a fifth or more of their annual income, but on the other side of the equation, 27% of maintained secondary schools were in deficit. Does this not need to be investigated?

[Mr Bacon]

It is very possible that it does. Most maintained schools and academy trusts have been in surplus, but there have been significant pressures on some maintained secondary schools. As my hon. Friend says, a sizeable minority of academy trusts are building up substantial reserves, meaning that they are spending less than their annual income on their pupils. What is done about that is a policy question and thus a matter for Government, rather than for the National Audit Office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help ensure the National Food Strategy provides a sustainable future for small-scale family farms.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The Government thank Henry Dimbleby and his team for their work on the independent review of the food system. We are committed to carefully considering the review and its recommendations, and responding in full with a White Paper in the next six months. That will set out our ambition and priorities for the food system to support farms of all sizes and our exceptional food and drink producers.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the heart will be ripped out of the British countryside if small-scale family farms in Kettering and elsewhere go under as a result of industrial agriculture and the relentless pursuit of cheap food? What will he do to ensure that family farms remain an important and permanent feature of rural life?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of small family farms in our agriculture system. A lot of the economic analysis done by the Government and companies such as AB Agri shows that some of those smaller family farms are technically the most proficient and often the most profitable, as they have attention to detail. The Government are going to be bringing forward more proposals to support new entrants to our farming industry so that we have a vibrant, profitable sector, with farms of all sizes.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for South Norfolk, representing the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What the planned timescale is for a response by the Government to the National Audit Office’s report on local government and net zero in England, published in July 2021.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) [V]]

The National Audit Office produced an important report recently considering how effectively central Government and local authorities in England are collaborating on net zero. The report emphasised the need for clear roles and responsibilities and for ensuring that local authorities have the right resources and skills to tackle net zero. The question of when the Government will respond is a matter for Government, but I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, told me this morning that his Committee will be taking evidence on this National Audit Office report on Wednesday 8 September.

[Mr Hollobone]

The National Audit Office report concludes that there are serious weaknesses in the Government’s approach to working with over 350 local councils in England on decarbonisation owing to a lack of clarity on the council’s overall roles, piecemeal funding and defuse accountabilities. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Public Accounts Committee to also scrutinise the Government’s response to this important report when it is eventually published?

[Mr Bacon]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Public Accounts Committee approves the NAO’s strategy and budgets and does not involve itself in individual reports, but he will also know that the National Audit Office report recommends that central Government carry out an analysis of the net zero funding available to local authorities, and it has highlighted that, despite the budget available going from £74 million in 2019-20 to £1.2 billion in 2020-21, the approach remains fragmented, so I hear what my hon. Friend says.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What the planned timescale is for a response by the Government to the NAO report findings on the Ministry of Defence's equipment plan 2020 to 2030, published on 12 January 2021.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) [V]]

The National Audit Office produced an important report examining the Ministry of Defence’s assessment of the affordability of the equipment plan for 2020 to 2030 and the management of equipment expenditure. It is the latest annual update on the financial pressures that the Ministry of Defence faces in developing its military capabilities. The Government will respond to the expected Public Accounts Committee report on the subject after it is published.

[Mr Hollobone]

In its devastating report, the NAO finds that the equipment plan

“remains unaffordable for the fourth successive year”,

that the budget gap is between £7 billion and £17 billion and that the MOD

“continues to make over-optimistic and inconsistent judgements when forecasting costs.”

What specific parliamentary scrutiny would my hon. Friend encourage to force the Government to address these very serious issues?