Badger Cull
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A large number of Members still wish to participate in the debate. To ensure that all of them can do so, I am reducing the time limit to seven minutes. Members can sit down, which is normal when the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker is on his or her feet.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I concur with what he says about the RSPCA, which is why I am so annoyed and disgusted by its behaviour in this particular context. I will turn later to his comments about the need for a vaccine.
What we are trying to do is discover the truth, and it is frustrating that others are always trying to avoid the truth. Of course we want to discover what improved cattle movements will do for the control of this disease, of course we want to clamp down on biosecurity and see what impact that has, of course we want to investigate the legal, effective and affordable vaccines that might be out there imminently or some way down the line, and of course—this is completely consistent—we want to ascertain once and for all whether a cull can play an important part in this. I stress what my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) said: this not a definitive policy but a pilot to ascertain once and for all whether this particular part of the mix is effective or otherwise.
I am frustrated, as I think are fellow Members, that while we are attempting to examine the benefits or otherwise of a pilot cull that might cull 4,000 badgers—slightly fewer than 1% of the UK total—thousands of farm animals, many of which will be healthy, are dying needlessly. Millions of pounds will be lost, more businesses will be damaged, and more families will be upset. The frustration lies in the fact that opponents cannot get over the hump of believing that if something involves the death of a single animal in any circumstances they will construct an argument around it that will prevent it from happening. We have to be more open-minded. Culling might have a positive effect. We cannot make progress until we accept that there is a case for at least exploring what the implications may be.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West, we in this House can get in a terrible muddle about the difference between cruelty and suffering. It seems that most people look at cruelty as an attribute of human activity, whereas we should be looking at suffering, which is, to some extent, a more measurable scientific judgment. We constantly confuse the two. I ask opponents of the cull this simple question: why is it apparently perfectly satisfactory to continue killing many thousands of farm animals needlessly—one every 15 minutes—whereas culling a relatively small number of wild animals as part of an important experiment is somehow completely unacceptable? We have not got anywhere near to that answer.
Let me finish with a tribute to the British Veterinary Association, with reference to a comment by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—she is not in her place now, but I hope she might read this. In her speech in our debate on circus animals she described the BVA as one of the most respected scientific organisations for animal welfare in this country. I agree. The BVA has assessed the evidence just as we have. It has looked at all the pros and cons and concluded that the proposals before the House are important and should be pursued. I might not be a scientist or understand the science, but I do trust the vets. There is an old saying: “You never trust something which has been doctored, but you can always trust something which has been vetted.” I agree with that. The BVA is a shining example of an organisation that has taken a measured view.
The Secretary of State has taken a brave decision. Let us not think for one minute that he would not have gone down the vaccination route if he could have possibly managed to do so. We owe it to our farmers, our cattle and our badgers to give him the support that he deserves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I want to take the opportunity to remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that it is not in order to refer either to a person or to the Public Gallery. That is quite clear in “Erskine May”. I did not want to interrupt his flow, given the time limits, and I will be loth to interrupt any other Member, unless, after my having reminded them not to refer to the Public Gallery, they proceed to do so.
Common Fisheries Policy
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. My constituency is miles from the coast, but it does seem that the CFP is a disaster and that things are going to be really dreadful. A little fisherman—one in the under-10 metre fleet—will have to be illegal or will go out of business, as is clear in Lowestoft. Does he agree with that perception?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) starts speaking again, may I remind hon. Members that we have an 11-minute time limit? We are going to overshoot because of interventions, so either the interventions will have to decrease or the time limit will go down. Time has not been docked from the hon. Gentleman, but we will not conclude this debate on time if we do not follow that approach.
Peter Aldous
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has just said.
We also need to have regard to our fish stocks. Three quarters of the EU fish stocks are over-fished, and only eight of 47 fish stocks in UK waters are in a healthy state. There is a need to protect spawning grounds and to manage fisheries responsibly.
Fisheries from the Mediterranean to the sub-Arctic are so varied that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot continue. There is a need for a range of tailored measures designed to suit the needs of individual fisheries. Maria Damanaki’s vision of the EU as a lighthouse, with member states steering the ship, is the course that we should look to pursue. There is a need to involve local fishermen, such as those in Lowestoft, to make full use of their expertise and knowledge, which has been built up over generations. They should be working alongside scientists, such as those at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is also in Lowestoft.
The European Commission has stated that it wants a scientifically set maximum sustainable yield for all fisheries to be in operation by 2015, while the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee has questioned whether that is realistic and whether we should instead be aiming for 2020. I am aware that in reaching that conclusion the Committee has carried out much research and its approach is underpinned by pragmatism, but I am worried about whether the recommendation sends out the right message. Commercial fishing in many of Britain’s coastal communities is in the last-chance saloon and some fish stocks are severely depleted. There is no time to waste. We need to be tackling the problems that we face now, putting in place a more sustainable management regime as quickly as possible.
The campaign to eliminate discards should be stepped up as soon as practically possible. That is what the nation wants and as their representatives we must do all that we can to deliver. There is no single solution; there is a need for a range of measures. We should develop new markets for less valued species. Consumers and retailers have responded positively in this regard in the last year and the Government need to work with them to go a step further. For example, we should be considering clearer labelling so that shoppers can make informed purchasing choices. An extension of the catch quota system that the Minister has piloted should be considered, alongside the adoption of more selective fishing practices as trialled in CEFAS’s Project 50%. Fishermen should also be making full use of modern technology, using the equipment that organisations such as CEFAS are developing.
There is a need to win over the hearts and minds of groups and countries that might see things differently. MEPs have a role to play and, indeed, in the east of England, Geoffrey Van Orden is doing that work in Brussels, while through the media Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is taking his campaign on to the international stage in France, Germany and Poland and, some might say, going into the lion’s den in Spain.
An issue about which I feel strongly is quotas, the system through which the domestic industry is managed. The current arrangements are discredited and do not work in a fair and equitable way. The fish in our seas are a public resource yet they seem to have acquired proprietorial rights with companies and organisations, often with no connection to fishing, leasing them out for substantial profit. The under-10 metre boats that make 76% of the domestic fleet have access to only 3% of quota.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Would the hon. Gentleman ensure that he faces the Chair when replying to that intervention? I could not catch everything he said when he responded to the previous one.
Barry Gardiner
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Of course ecosystems interact with each other, and in so far as the hon. Gentleman makes that point it is absolutely unexceptional. None the less, scientists and fishermen look at those ecosystems. Of course there are migratory stocks, straddling stocks, nurseries where fish spawn and spawning grounds that need to be protected, but the point is to look at this as part of the ecosystem and not simply to divide it up into national countries’ interests. We need a regionalised framework based around significant ecosystems so that we can manage those stocks more effectively.
At present, even detailed technical decisions are taken centrally in Europe. The Lisbon treaty provides that the EU has exclusive competence under the CFP. However, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report makes an interesting case for a lawful way of qualifying the EU’s exclusive competence over the conservation of marine resources, thereby creating a framework for genuine regionalisation. It argues that exclusive competence does not apply where the CFP does not apply. Therefore, if the CFP regulations were amended to exclude certain marine conservation policies, the scope of the exclusive competence would be limited to the amended CFP.
The establishment of regional advisory councils is cited as a key success of the 2002 CFP reform because they have served as forums for stakeholders to inform policy implementation at a regional level. The trouble is that they have no decision-making powers. Although the draft basic regulation that sets out the main rules for the CFP would address centralised decision making through a combination of multi-annual plans and regionalisation of decision making, I think that a fully regionalised management system should include the following features: quotas allocated on the basis of ecosystem regions in order to manage fishing pressures according to the necessities of those different ecosystems; regular scientific assessment of all marine species, not just fish stocks, within a given eco-region in order to establish the impact of fishing on the ecosystem as a whole; and quota allocation on the basis of eco-regions with different licences used in different ecosystem regions and with no transfers between those regions.
Certain decision-making powers need to be devolved to regional management bodies in order to tailor the application of central policy objectives for EU fisheries to the specifics of each ecosystem. The main tool for fisheries management is the annual setting of total allowable catches. Currently, the European Commission requests scientific advice for the establishment of fisheries management plans on the basis of sustainability. However, the European Council is under no obligation to adhere to that advice when agreeing total annual quotas for stocks.
The result is that the European Fisheries Council sets total allowable catch limits that are on average 34% higher than scientifically recommended sustainable limits. In the period 1987 to 2011, European Fisheries Ministers set fishing quotas above scientific recommendations in 68% of their decisions. In the case of one hake stock, quotas were set 1,100% higher than scientists advised.
Over-fishing has made the fishing industry economically vulnerable, but over-fishing does not have just economic costs; it has social and environmental ones as well. At the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development in 2002, the EU committed to achieving MSY—maximum sustainable yield—for all fish stocks by 2015 at the latest, but in 2010 it estimated that 72% of its fisheries remained over-fished, with 20% fished beyond safe biological limits, risking the wholesale collapse of those fisheries.
The zero draft for the forthcoming United Nations sustainable development conference in Rio calls on states to maintain or restore depleted fish stocks to sustainable levels, and further to commit to implementing science-based management plans to rebuild stocks by 2015.
The EU marine strategy framework directive requires that all EU fisheries achieve good environmental status by 2020, including the attainment of sustainable fishing levels for all stocks.
Barry Gardiner
Discards have been widely debated in this Chamber, and I shall try to come on to that issue, but time is limited, so I must press on. I acknowledge the force of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, however.
MSY is the largest catch that can be sustained over the long term, but there is FMSY and BSMY, fishing maximum sustainable yield and biomass maximum sustainable yield. The argument that I made to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who speaks for the Scottish National party, was precisely to that point, because we can go on getting FMSY out of a small stock, but if we want to achieve the largest possible catch we need to build the biomass MSY to ensure that we then get a sustainable yield out of that much larger biomass.
That is why I absolutely urge the Minister to support Commissioner Damanaki in saying that we have to achieve FMSY by 2015, albeit that biomass MSY might not be achieved until sometime after that—I hope as soon as possible, but no later than 2020, as the stocks demand.
Achieving that aim by 2015 will necessitate the following key measures: first, rendering scientific advice binding, thus preventing quotas from exceeding biologically sustainable limits; and, secondly, introducing stock assessments and management plans for all fish and shellfish, including non-commercial species that are currently unmanaged, in order to establish sustainable limits for harvesting. Ensuring that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels is an absolute prerequisite of the future profitability and survival of EU fisheries.
But we also need to think about the issue in terms of biomass—something that the Committee’s report does not address. A biomass MSY is the biomass that can support the harvest of that maximum sustainable yield. Achieving MSY as set out in the draft CFP means rebuilding fish populations to a level of biomass maximum sustainable yield in order to support the level of annual catches—and viable fishing communities, their economies and their social needs.
In an effort to limit fishing to sustainable levels, EU regulations under the common fisheries policy prohibit the landing of commercial species above a given annual quota. In practice, however, that often results in the discarding of thousands of tonnes of saleable fish—but just at the point when I am about to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), I fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are going to tell me that I have run out of time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Absolutely spot-on. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct.
Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to colleagues who have contributed, from both upstream and downstream. Both banks of the Thames have been represented, which is a good thing. I should probably have started by declaring two interests. I chair the Mayor of London’s Thames festival, which has a regular interest in ensuring that we celebrate our Thames, and I am a patron of the London Wildlife Trust, which has done lots of work on the Thames. I am also a supporter of Thames21, which has been applauded by Members on both sides of the House and has done fantastic work, as have other environmental bodies.
I join the Minister in celebrating the fact that another country’s sovereign wealth fund is interested in investing. That is a good thing. The announcement of the Chinese investment interest in the past few weeks was very welcome and I share his view.
I shall be brief and shall just pick up on the comments that have been made. The Minister has been very courteous and recognised that I was seeking to put on the agenda items that I and my constituents think that the Government ought to bear in mind as they take the Bill forward. I accept entirely that the Bill, as drafted, has a subsection of proposed new section 154B that allows the terms and conditions for any financial assistance to be inserted by the Secretary of State. The debate we are about to have, which will be initiated by the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) on behalf of the official Opposition, is a sort of halfway house. The proposal is that we do not get into the detail but that we have a mechanism—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Shall we wait until we start to discuss those amendments before we start referring to them? The right hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the amendments that he has tabled.
Simon Hughes
Thank you, Ms Primarolo, and of course I will.
I understand that the Minister realises what the issues are. I heard what the Minister said, and I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) that the equator principles are now well-established principles for finance companies that are lending nationally and internationally and they were the best form I could find of a benchmark of ethical standards for financial companies that are lending to utilities. Yes, they were developed in the context of the third world, or the developing world, but they do not just apply there. I understand the points that were made.
The negotiations to which the Minister referred are being conducted confidentially, of course, and I understand that, but I hope that after today’s debate we will be able to ensure—the Minister has offered to do so—that there is engagement across the parties and across the House, including with those of us whose constituents, like his, have an interest in our ending up with a rigorous system for ensuring that Thames Water is accountable. We have flagged up the wider issue, which we want to take elsewhere, with Government.
On the comments of Opposition Members, not least those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), about the meeting held upstairs, I am grateful that colleagues came to that meeting and others held in this and other buildings about Thames Water. My view is that an evidence-based conclusion should be reached about what the right systems are for dealing with what has been a growing problem for the Thames. We need to make sure that we are all confident that we come up with the right solution, and it is perfectly proper to call people who have views and experience to give evidence. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was slightly surprised that Professor Binnie appeared to move from a view that he had moved on to, back to a view that he had originally held. It is important not to ignore the principle that we should not overspend on a capital project if there are other ways of doing things that give better value for money.
I am grateful for the time we have taken to look at this issue, which is now on the agenda. I am determined that engagement with Ministers should continue and I hope that Ministers will be very positive about making sure that not only the Government but Thames Water and Ofwat engage. May I end by correcting one thing that I mis-said when I was talking about an example that should give us a warning? I was talking about the M6 project and the way it had been funded. I said that the company that ran the project, which is linked to the company involved in Thames Water, had a net worth of £67 million and paid no corporation tax, but I should have said that it had a net worth of minus £67 million. I hope that this makes my point a better one—that a company may appear not to have any money but can be paying out large amounts in dividends. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put that right and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gavin Shuker
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
‘(6A) No financial assistance may be given under subsection (6) unless the Secretary of State has laid a draft of a statutory instrument setting out the terms and conditions including the duration of such assistance before, and such draft has been approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
‘(6B) Before making regulations or an order under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on her proposals to make apprenticeship programmes including at a Level 5 and Level 6 standard part of any major works, as well as an estimate of the number of jobs created and benefit to the local economy.’.
Gavin Shuker
In this final grouping, we seek to improve the Bill by ensuring that the same parliamentary scrutiny is applied to the wide-ranging powers in clause 2 as we sought to introduce for clause 1, and that the benefits of major works are shared with the whole community, not just shareholders. Amendment 2 recognises that the powers in clause 2 for the Government to provide contingent financial support for exceptionally large or complex water and sewerage infrastructure should be subject to proper debate in the House before they are triggered. As I have already said, it is not our desire to frustrate the will of the House; indeed, there is, by and large, consensus across the House that something must be done to correct the issues with the Thames and that the Thames tunnel presents the best solution for that problem. However, I feel that the clause needs to be considered beyond the context of today and the policy statement that I believe will come out in the House on Monday night.
Food Prices and Food Poverty
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend, like me, comes from Coventry. Would she be surprised to learn that 35,000 children from Coventry and Warwickshire will now be on the poverty line, and does she think that that is an indictment of this Government’s failed policies? More importantly, many families are now struggling with electricity prices, heating bills and so on, which is feeding through—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Interventions must be brief, as we are in a short debate with time limits on speeches.
Mary Creagh
I am very sorry to hear that my home city of Coventry has 35,000 children living in poverty. I am sure the number was similar when I was growing up there in the 1970s and 1980s and I am only sorry that much of the good work we did in government is falling away and poverty is increasing.
FareShare, which operates nationwide and works to redistribute aid from the food industry to charities, says demand is growing faster than supply. I pay tribute to both Sainsbury’s and Brakes, which recycle their in-date surplus to FareShare. It is important that the food is in-date so that there is no risk associated with that food, which includes fresh vegetables and, in particular, meat. Supermarkets could be doing much more to recycle food waste to hungry people. FareShare estimates it gets 1% of supermarket food waste, which prompts the question of where the other 99% is going. More of it should be recycled to hungry children in this country, which is one of the richest on earth. We can learn from food businesses such as Pret A Manger, which delivers surplus sandwiches around its London stores in the evening. We recall with horror the Tory proposals from Westminster council last year, when it wanted to make food distribution illegal. I pay tribute to all those who fought that proposal and protected people’s basic human right to a square meal even in the city of Westminster.
Gareth said that food is at the heart of everything his organisation does, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, charities are tackling a complex web of abuse, abandonment by the breadwinner, debt, unemployment, non-payment of benefits and other equally serious issues such as house fires, which she mentioned.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I note that the motion expresses dismay at the Government’s delay, yet it asks for the groceries code adjudicator to be introduced in the next Parliament, rather than in the next parliamentary year, which I assume is a drafting error. Leaving that aside, given the fact that the first Competition Commission report was in 2000, and the Competition Commission report to which the hon. Lady refers was completed in 2008, what word other than “dismay” would she use to describe the Labour Government’s response to that report?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I remind everyone in the Chamber that the debate ends at 7 pm? There is already a time limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches. Interventions should therefore be short, and I hope opening speeches will not be overly long.
Mary Creagh
I quote back to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George):
“Every week the government fails to act, farmers are finding themselves in more difficulty.”
That is what he said. The supermarkets were insistent. We wanted an ombudsman. The supermarkets asked for a voluntary approach. It is right to try a voluntary approach first, which we did, but it did not work. This is the anti-regulation Government, but that approach failed. What we need now is action from his Government.
The commission recommended the powers to levy significant financial penalties, but the Government are recommending that only in reserve powers in the Bill, not on the face of the Bill, meaning that fines for anti-competitive practices are even further away than 2015. The Financial Times quoted an executive of a large supermarket chain saying that
“it is an adjudicator rather than an ombudsman, which suggests that it is a watered-down role.”
Suppliers can complain anonymously, but they are liable for full cost recovery if the adjudicator finds that the complaint was vexatious or wholly without merit. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee recommended that whistleblowing from within retailers should also be grounds for launching an investigation, which BIS Ministers are currently considering.
Consider this anonymous salad grower who works with the Food and Drink Federation:
“X”—
the name of a supermarket—
“have expected us to support their current pricing campaign in store by contributing with reduced price returns, to maintain their margin demands. It has been made very clear that lack of support could be seen as showing no commitment to”—
the supermarket—
“and the potential loss of business, forcing us to drop our prices and support the activity. Interestingly none of this has been put in writing.”
This suggests anti-competitive practices across the sector. If there is bad treatment at the top of the pyramid, that sets the tone for treatment all the way down the food chain, right down to the workers in the field. What we want is culture change across the food industry.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the moves that the Government are making, such as freezing council tax and cutting fuel duty? That has made general inflation a much more manageable phenomenon for ordinary families.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Not at this precise point; the right hon. Lady is speaking to the motion.
Mrs Spelman
That is a shame, Madam Deputy Speaker, because there is a long list of things relevant to household budgets; there was a wider definition of that earlier. Freezing council tax is but one example of what frees up the budget to buy more food.
Last year, the Government’s Foresight report on the future of food and farming concluded that Governments across the world must take action now to ensure that a rising global population can be fed. It is a chilling fact that in only 13 years there will be 1 billion more mouths to feed on this planet. Increasing demand for water, land and energy means that food security is one of the world’s greatest challenges. The report identified five challenges for all nations to act on: balancing future demand and supply; ensuring that there is adequate food price stability and protecting the most vulnerable from volatility; achieving global access to food and ending hunger; managing the contribution of the food system to mitigating climate change; and maintaining biodiversity in our ecosystems. To take on those challenges, we need international reform. To address global food security, we need an increase in agricultural productivity, which means a move away from subsidy. To address the risk of climate instability disrupting production patterns, we must have open world trading systems.
In June last year, G20 Agriculture Ministers met and agreed to the creation of an agricultural market information system, which aims to stabilise food price volatility through better transparency in the marketplace. In November, I attended the climate change conference and helped the South African Agriculture Minister to get agriculture included in the work stream for the next climate change convention. We are now preparing for Rio plus 20, where we will push for international policies to help the most vulnerable in our society. We will lobby for the sustainable intensification of agriculture, climate-smart agriculture and the reduction of post-harvest losses. The Afghan Minister whom I met in Berlin this weekend at green week said that the reduction of harvest losses would make one of the greatest contributions to combating famine.
The challenges present an opportunity for the UK, and we need to be the first out of the blocks and embrace it. British food producers must make the most of international markets. That is why I have announced that I will publish an action plan at the end of the month to help export the best of British food and drink across the world. It is through global trade that the UK can secure its future food supply and help keep food prices down. We already contribute to global food supply. We provide 2% of global wheat exports, 4% of global barley exports and 1% of global cereal exports. That demonstrates that the UK has a major role in food production. By expanding production and exports, we can contribute to the overall economic recovery.
The food and farming industry is a high performer with great potential. The food chain contributes £88 billion per annum to the economy, which is 7% of GDP. It is responsible for 3.7 million jobs. The Government are acting across the food chain to stimulate growth, facilitate international trade and drive fair competition, because a thriving and competitive economy, where our products are freely traded on an international market, will deliver resilient, stable and affordable food supplies to our consumers.
The Government are working with industry and environmental partners to see how we can reconcile our goals of improving environmental protection and increasing food production. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield for welcoming the green food project. The Government are spending £400 million on food and farming research, which addresses productivity, environmental performance and resilience along the food chain.
Nobody is under any illusion about the pressures that high food prices put on all our constituents. However, it would be wrong to pretend that there is a “silver bullet” solution when there is not.
Laura Sandys
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is pretty frightening that wheat yields in this country have not increased at all over the past 20 years. Also, because food has been so cheap in this country, we have not valued it. As a result, there is a huge amount of waste in the system.
It is interesting that the Opposition have chosen this subject for debate, because you left this country very vulnerable—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. That is the second time the hon. Lady has done this. She is not to refer to the Chair in that way. I have not done anything. She should refer to “the hon. Lady”. I certainly have nothing to do with fruit of any kind.
Laura Sandys
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To address the bigger problem of food insecurity, we should look to the energy model. This Government’s strategy on energy insecurity aims to manage a valuable resource, to address the waste in the system and to build greater UK resilience to international price fluctuations. With some tweaks, several of those policy mechanisms could and should be adopted for food. Security of supply is an example. The previous Government cannot claim much credit in that area. Imports of food increased by 52% under the previous Government and agricultural land was diverted away from production. Thank goodness, today we have Ministers who understand the issues of production.
To build greater security of supply, domestic production must, in my view, increase. We must build a hedging mechanism against global volatility and realise not only that food imports will become more expensive but that the level of imports, with a weak pound, is having a negative impact on our balance of payments and placing inflationary pressure on benefits and entitlements.
We must address food waste with a similar tenacity to that with which we are addressing energy waste through the green deal. We need to reverse the indulgent years that deskilled the consumer in food preparation and supported profligacy in the supply chain. Customers—we, the consumers—are often accused of being responsible for such waste, but I disagree. The system is designed to create waste and the consumer is merely responding to how the supermarkets and other retailers sell their products. The waste in procurement is terrifying and I hope that the grocery code of practice will ensure that we reduce some of it. As I have mentioned before, my campaign through Ugly Food is one way of addressing some of the waste embedded in our system.
Waste is also embedded in the design of consumer-facing products. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) talked about the packaging and presentation of food. People blame the customer, but is it their fault? Servings of food are often too big and processed foods are heavily advertised. Although the Government have made a great deal of progress on display dates, safety dates mislead the consumer about the longevity of products. Point-of-sale displays draw consumers to larger packages rather than smaller units of food and BOGOFs—buy one, get one free offers—neither help single item shoppers nor reduce the bills for family shoppers.
Environmental Protection and Green Growth
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Carmichael
Doubtless the Department for Transport will deal with that. We have a new Secretary of State, and I look forward to seeing what she does. However, the fact is that joined-up government is important.
The story that I was telling hon. Members about is still relevant, because the Minister was talking about the national environment White Paper—which has been endorsed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts and so on—in parallel with the national planning policy framework. That is absolutely excellent and is a true demonstration of effective joined-up government helping to deliver polices that make a difference across rural areas. I welcome that. In the past, we saw a Labour Government who were “siloed”; in the future, we see a coalition Government thinking in terms of Departments working together to produce policies that make a difference.
In an intervention, I talked briefly about flooding, but I want to emphasise the importance of localism with reference—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Unfortunately the clock was not going down as the hon. Gentleman was speaking, so he has had more than his time. I would therefore like him to conclude his remarks.
Neil Carmichael
I want to draw the House’s attention to the fantastic work that Water21 is doing to promote flood attenuation in the Slad valley. That is a classic example of good localism, good foresight and how flooding can be dealt with in a different, more imaginative way. It is a tribute to the people of Stroud and every—
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am gratified by the extent to which successive Governments have sought to brand themselves as green—after all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery. However, I also see it as part of my role to scrutinise the authenticity of any promises made and, most importantly, to inquire whether fine and noble rhetoric is backed by fast and ambitious action.
It is important to say at the outset, as the Green party always has, that environmental policies cannot be just bolted on to business as usual. We have always said that to judge the greenness of a Government, we should look not so much at their environmental policies, but at their economic programme. If a Government’s economic policies are simply about promoting more and more conventional economic growth based on the production and consumption of yet more finite resources, it does not really matter how many green trimmings they add to their manifesto. The direction of travel will still be fundamentally unsustainable. Judged by that measure, sadly not one of the main parties has come close to understanding the true nature of green politics.
Therefore, although I welcome the fact that Labour has chosen the Government’s green record as the subject for today’s debate, and although I am heartened by the commitment that I have heard in the Chamber today, it is interesting to contemplate why those aspirations, commitments and statements are not made when we discuss the Budget or growth, for example. In those debates, all the “business as usual” economic arguments are trotted out, as ever. We do not marry up all the nice words about the environment that we have heard today with the arguments that we hear in those economic debates, which is when it really matters. To say that this shows remarkable inconsistency would be a kind way of putting it.
Over a year ago the Prime Minister pledged that this would be the greenest Government ever. The first thing to say about that aspiration is that it is sadly not particularly ambitious, given Labour’s poor record on the environment in the preceding 13 years in office. At the end of that Labour term, the UK was getting more of its energy from fossil fuels than in 1997, when Labour came to power. Everyone rejoices in a sinner who repents, but one cannot help but think that, at best, Labour’s criticism of the Government’s record today shows an almost heroic degree of collective amnesia.
It is significant that one of the first acts of this Government, who aspire to be the greenest ever, was to abolish the very body that could have had a role in judging whether they could achieve that. I refer, of course, to the Sustainable Development Commission—I support the comments that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made about that. As a critical friend, the commission was a vital in providing well-informed scrutiny of Government policy. The commission also saved the Treasury around £300 million over 10 years, against running costs of just £4 million a year. The scrapping of that commission undermines the Government’s assertion that they are committed to green issues. It is also the first of many examples of ideology trumping common sense, economic sense and environmental sense.
Much has been said today about the green investment bank, and of course it is a good idea to have such a bank. It is very badly named, however, in that it is not very green and, so far, it is not even a bank. The Government are actively considering using it to subsidise nuclear power, and its wings are being clipped from the outset through insufficient capitalisation and no initial borrowing capacity for several years at least.
I could refer to many other issues, but I would like briefly to mention the complete chaos that the solar industry is now in, thanks to the way in which the Government keep moving the goalposts in relation to the level at which the feed-in tariffs are going to be secured. That is a tragedy not only for the environment but for some of the fantastic solar industries in this country that could be at the forefront of solar power internationally. Because the Government keep changing their level of support, however, the industry has been left in great confusion.
In conclusion, I shall return to my first point. Slavish adherence to the same economic model that has created the economic crisis and the climate crisis will not empower us to build a sustainable future and make the transition to a zero-carbon economy, yet that is what the Government and the Opposition are relying on. Yes, efficiency gains can help, and yes, technology will have a vital role to play, but there is a real risk—which has not been addressed today—that, with a rising population and understandably rising expectations from a growing middle class around the world, those efficiency and technological gains will be undermined by the overall level of net growth. That means that behaviour change will have to be a far greater part of the solution when it comes to adopting sustainable development, yet the dogma that we can carry on with business as usual provided that there is more and more economic growth to get us out of this economic crisis—never mind the long-term environmental, social and economic consequences—is barely questioned by politicians. Professor Tim Jackson states:
“Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must.”
We must—
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I want to start by taking issue with a couple of Members who said that we should not get political about this issue. First, I would say, “Try telling that to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change and the Chancellor of the Exchequer”, who seem to be in open warfare in today’s newspapers. Furthermore, this is one of the most crucial political topics we face, and if we wrap it all up in warm words and a coat of greenwash without questioning or challenging some of the progress, we will be in danger of letting the whole agenda slide.
In the limited time available, I would like to focus on a couple of issues. A number of Members have commented on the “Nature Check” survey, which gave the red light to the Government on a range of issues, three of which deal with planning. There is real concern that the Treasury is dominating and overriding the environmental agenda in respect of planning issues. The Budget of 2011 said that
“The Government will introduce a powerful new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is ‘yes’.”
We also know that the Chancellor said at the Conservative party conference in Manchester:
“We’re not going to save the planet by putting the country out of business.”
He believed that, rather than leading the way in pushing a green agenda in Europe, we should only rise to the standards of other European countries, which I think is entirely wrong.
Simon Jenkins, the head of the National Trust, gave evidence to a Commons Committee the other day, saying that the “fingerprints” of rich builders were all over the planning reforms, while The Daily Telegraph, which one would expect to be on the side of the Conservative party, talked about an elite forum of property developers who were charging key players in the industry £2,500 a year to set up breakfast, dinner and drinks with senior Tories. This club raises £150,000 a year for the Conservatives. I would appreciate it if the Minister responded to that in his summing up, and explained what influence is being exercised. We have seen the influence of people behind the scenes in health and defence policy and other aspects of the Government’s agenda.
One subject that has not been mentioned much in the context of planning is the new biodiversity offsetting regime. In Bristol, there has been real concern about the local authority’s failure to spend section 106 money. It is estimated that between £10 million and £12 million that should have been allocated to community projects, infrastructure and schools is sitting in the council coffers. As a result, not only will environments that have evolved over centuries and could be described as part of our natural heritage be replaced by artificial new landscapes, but there will be no means of ensuring that the offsetting actually happens and is maintained for many years to come. We need to know whether the regime will be effective, or whether it is just an excuse for developers to be able to destroy natural habitats and the environment. As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds pointed out, we need a system that filters out habitats that are irreplaceable, as opposed to those that can easily be created elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) expressed concern about the lack of certainty in relation to feed-in tariffs. Support has already been scrapped for large-scale projects, and it is rumoured that the Government will announce a halving of tariff rates tomorrow. Let me give an example. The Royal Bath and West of England Society was due to develop a solar photovoltaic park, for which it had already received planning permission and which it wanted to use to kick-start a rural regeneration project that it expected to create about 1,500 jobs. It had structured the project on the basis of the expected revenue from profit on the feed-in tariffs. Critically, it was interested in a loophole provided by the Department for Energy and Climate Change that would have allowed the project to proceed if it plugged in 10% of its electricity generation by 1 August 2012. Thankfully, it had not made a decision before the deadline was moved to 18 October 2010. The chief executive, Dr Jane Guise, told us today that “shifting goalposts” were making it impossible to invest in and plan for the future. She also wondered why the Treasury was involved at all.
I am afraid I have no time to give the House any more information about that, but I urge Members to talk to people who had spent months planning a project that would have brought huge benefit to the local community, but is now being—
Richard Benyon
I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has had his time. [Interruption.]
When we consider flooding, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is in my head because it has proved that there are other ways—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is far too much noise in the Chamber, including a large number of private conversations. The Minister must be heard without his having to bellow at the top of his voice.
Richard Benyon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There have been some excellent initiatives all around the country, not least in my hon. Friend’s constituency, that have shown how we can unlock more money for flood relief and coastal erosion resilience. I commend the points she made. The total environment concept that we are rolling out around the country is showing that we can work with local government, other organisations and the wider DEFRA family to achieve a better result for the rural communities she represents.
I remind the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) that when her party was in power it was selling off forests at quite a dramatic rate with very little protection for public access. She said that we have rejected the Pitt report, but nothing could be further from the truth: we have implemented all but one of its recommendations and I had a meeting on that recommendation today.
I appreciated the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). There is much that is consensual about this debate although it might not feel like it at this precise moment. My right hon. Friends and I had a meeting with Sir John Beddington when we took office and he told us that we had to do something that is hard for politicians to do—look beyond the horizon of four or five years that we are accustomed to looking at in the electoral cycle. What is required is a horizon shift to deal with the possible storm that could be approaching from a shortage of energy, water and food. That requires initiative, vision and a proper approach to these issues; that is what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made a fascinating speech. It is good to see that deficit denial is alive and well and living in Swansea. What he and others fail to understand is that sustainable development is now mainstream in government; it is not parked in some organisation that is peripheral—it is central to what we do.
I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He is right that what we are looking for is joined-up policies across government. The benefits of localism come from an understanding not just in silos, as it was considered in the past, but with support from across government to the benefit of constituents.
I hope that the scepticism of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the green investment bank will wither as we introduce it and she sees its benefits for new green technologies. She talked about business as usual, but this Government are not about business as usual on green technologies. This is about a horizon shift and taking a new approach.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Office of Rural Affairs—
‘(1) The duties of the Commission for Rural Communities contained in section 19 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (Representation, advice and monitoring) are to be transferred to a body to be known as the Office of Rural Affairs, which will report to the Secretary of State.’.
New clause 9—Independent Rural Advocate—
‘(1) The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 17 (Commission for Rural Communities) for “Commission for Rural Communities” there is substituted “Rural Advocate”.
(3) Subsection 17(2) is omitted.
(4) In section 18 (Commission’s general purpose) and section 19 (Representation, advice and monitoring) for all references to “Commission for Rural Communities” there is substituted “Rural Advocate”.’.
Amendment 32, in schedule 1, page 21, line 11, leave out
‘Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales’.
Amendment 39, in schedule 1, page 21, line 18, leave out ‘Commission for Rural Communities,’.
Andrew George
It is a pleasure to follow the previous debate, which was rather more truncated than I was expecting. I wish to emphasise the importance of retaining, under new clause 7, the protections provided by the Agricultural Wages Board, as well as addressing the importance of maintaining, under new clauses 8 and 9, an overarching mechanism—indeed, an independent body—that can advocate on behalf of rural areas. The Agricultural Wages Board was established under the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, but the heritage of that body goes back to 1924. It is an independent body with a statutory obligation to set minimum wages for agricultural workers in England and Wales and powers to determine other terms and conditions, including holidays and sick pay.
Fisheries
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I generally welcome the motion and will be happy to support it, because it is absolutely necessary that we have a different approach to the common fisheries policy. I wish to draw the House’s attention to a report produced many years ago by a House of Lords Committee, which highlighted the need to apply science and technology—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. If he wishes to draw the House’s attention to something, he can make a speech, but he cannot do so in an intervention, so we will leave it at that.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he wishes to intervene again briefly, I will give way.
Public Forest Estate (England)
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I want to raise the issue of the public perception of the plans, and to read out what my constituent, Lindsey Page, has told me. She says:
“I have heard the argument that if a forest area is sold off then there will be safeguards written into the contract of sale that should safeguard the access, but I don’t believe such contracts are enforceable.”
Does not that go to the heart of the matter? The public have no faith that there will be adequate safeguards.
Mary Creagh
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of the matter. The only legally enforceable rights are public access rights guaranteed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The introduction of further “higher rights” would require changes to primary legislation. [Interruption.] Who will enforce the leases in 150 years’ time? It is certain that none of us will be around to remember this debate at that time.
Who will benefit from the sales? The Confederation of Forest Industries’ website says that the price of commercial forests rose
“138% since 2002, which equates to a 17% average annual growth over the period”.
So the forests that the Tories sold off in the 1980s and ’90s have trebled or quadrupled in value. Where is the public benefit from those increased land values? There is none. Forestry land is exempt from inheritance tax after two years, and timber sales have no income tax or capital gains tax. When we sell our forests, the taxpayer loses many times over.
“Private companies buying 75-year rights to woodland would naturally seek to maximise returns from timber extraction”—
[Interruption.] The Minister should allow me to finish my quote before chuntering; I think that he is going to like it:
“There is no sign that the consequences for conservation, recreation and tourism have been properly weighed up in these plans. The Government is using ‘slash and burn’ tactics”.
Those are not my words; that was a press release from the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury in January 2009, when a similar plan was proposed by the Scottish Government. I do not see the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) in the Chamber today.
Mr Paice
When the hon. Lady provides the House with quotes, it would be useful if she properly attributed them in the context of the events that they addressed. She referred to the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but is she not aware that what he said was in response to the then Scottish Government’s proposals? Is she not aware that we are proposing not 75-year leases, but 150-year leases? Most importantly, is she not aware that under the Scottish national land use scheme—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister, you must be brief. I think we have got the point.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Minister, you will resume your seat now. Thank you. I am on my feet and I have already said that interventions must be brief. That applies to everyone, including Front-Bench Members. This is a very important debate and many Members wish to contribute to it.
Mary Creagh
I missed some of what the Minister said, but I do not understand how his offering leases of 150 years is somehow better than the Scottish Government offering a 75-year lease.
We in the Labour party are proud of our record on forestry. We gave people the right to roam; we established two national parks; we replanted coalfield sites and landfill sites; and we brought trees closer to cities for all to enjoy. We planted 2 million trees in Warrington, 2 million in St Helens and 1 million each in Ellesmere Port, Moseley and Wigan.
The United Nations has announced 2011 as the international year of forestry. The Government have chosen a very strange way of marking it. The countryside is walking, cycling and riding against this Government’s plans to privatise England’s forests. People are furious at this environmental vandalism. We plant a tree to remember our loved ones, to mark an event, to leave a gift for those who come after us. The Forestry Commission costs each of us 30p a year. That is 30p to preserve our shared history, our cherished ancient oaks, ash and beech—sold for 30 pieces of silver! The Government’s plans will destroy the funding model that has protected England’s forests for nearly 100 years. If we sell the commercial timber lands, we starve the ancient woodlands. That is the simple equation and the fundamental fallacy at the heart of the Government’s proposals. The true value of our forests will never be reflected in the price the Government get from selling them.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
As the right hon. Lady will know, I have been very disappointed that some 100,000 acres is not covered by the consultation that started last Thursday. Will she guarantee for my constituents that the land for sale or lease in that 100,000 acres will be subject to absolute guarantees on protecting and enhancing biodiversity, on maintaining, protecting and improving public access for recreation and leisure, on ensuring the continued and increasing role of woodlands in climate change mitigation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Goodness me. I would like Members to make their interventions brief, and not take the opportunity of an intervention to make their speech. I call the Secretary of State.
Mrs Spelman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can assure the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) that there are statutory requirements for biodiversity. Planned sales under the spending review—plans that are published—will have greater protection than was afforded under the previous Government. Our objective in the amendment to the Public Bodies Bill is to make sure that we increase protection for access and other public benefits.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. My apologies to the hon. Gentleman. Before he starts, I thought it might be a good time to remind Members that, on this debate as well, there is a time limit of six minutes, and it is from now. So, Huw Irranca-Davies, you have six minutes from now.
Huw Irranca-Davies
A second start. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
When I was in the privileged position of being the Minister for Marine and Natural Environment at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one thing stood out about DEFRA: all the staff, agencies, green organisations and third sector organisations believed that they were on a mission in terms of the natural environment. We created national parks, protected wildlife, tackled wildlife crime, worked internationally to protect biodiversity and we increased access to the countryside and the quality of our uplands and seas. We also looked after the forests and promoted more woodland coverage, making steady strides to increase our poor showing among European nations.
I do not honestly believe that anybody from DEFRA, the Forestry Commission, Natural England or a host of other organisations, whose staff deeply care emotionally and intellectually about our woodlands and our natural environment, genuinely supports the policy. I do not believe that the Minister’s heart is in it; that might be the same for the Secretary of State, truth be told. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) does not support it.
Interestingly, however, the hon. Gentleman does not have a say. He has most of my old responsibilities as a Minister for the environment, but with one hugely noticeable exception: forestry. Why? He still covers, as I did, everything else in the natural environment, but forestry has disappeared from the environment Minister’s remit. That is no slur on his abilities, because he is no fool, but it is telling that forestry has gone from the environment Minister’s portfolio. The message is quite simple: the forests and woodland, from the inception of this Government, were downgraded in importance; they were no longer part of the natural environment brief.