Air Quality Strategy

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I was in full agreement with the hon. Gentleman until that last bit. Of course not. I was going to praise the work of Southampton City Council, which has received significant Government funding for its clean air programmes. It is doing a good job and should continue to do so. To be clear, as things stand, clean air zones can be implemented by any local authority. It should therefore be in the interests of all local authorities to do whatever they can to improve air quality for their local communities.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Should not the air quality plan be seen in the wider context of the environment and tax changes? Is it not the case that the Government are in a more difficult position than they would be otherwise because of the legacy of the wrong-headed tax changes made by Labour? As a result of the ridiculous tax changes made under Gordon Brown, we more than doubled the number of diesel cars and increased the number of diesel vans to 3 million.

Middle Level Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not have put it better myself.

Why do we need a Bill? As many hon. Members know, I regularly make the point on Fridays that legislating is not something to do for the fun of it or a unique form of parliamentary sport. For a Bill to be worthy of parliamentary time, there must be a clear need for it. This private Bill is being promoted by the Middle Level Commissioners, a statutory corporation constituted under the Middle Level Act 1862. The commissioners provide flood defence and water level management to the Middle Level area, and they are the navigation authority for the Middle Level river system. The legal framework that governs the commissioners’ navigation function is made up of several 18th and 19th-century Acts that regulate the use of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May I, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, offer my sincerest apologies for my lateness? I was detained coming into the Palace.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the area covered by the Middle Level Commissioners is not strictly analogous to that of other navigation authorities, in that the Middle Level area consists essentially of interconnected drainage basins rather than stand-alone, bespoke rivers and canals?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend shows his exceptional knowledge of his constituency and the assets that support it. He is right. Fundamentally, as I will come on to say when I talk about the regulatory framework, the waterways in question were built as a drainage system, but they have gone on to be used by pleasure boats and other vessels. One of the reasons why the Bill is necessary is because some of the uses were not envisaged at the time of the 1862 Act. Clearly motorboats did not exist at the time, and the concept of canal usage was very different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

I will make some more progress and then I will be only too happy to give way again.

The regulation of these waterways, which were mainly laid out in the 17th century, is considerably out of date and does not align with modern requirements or the statutory framework applicable to other navigation authorities, including neighbouring ones. In particular, the current legal framework that governs the commissioners does not include adequate provision for the registration of vessels using the waterways or the levying of charges for the use of the waterways and associated facilities. In my briefings with the promoters, it was remarked that the framework means that the exemptions are for pleasure craft and those transporting manure. As a result, the commissioners currently do not receive any income from the navigation of the waterways, so money raised through drainage rates and levies has to be used to fund navigation, rather than flood defences. In the financial year ending on 31 March 2016, this amounted to £178,929.06 of unfunded expenditure. The commissioners are therefore seeking to update and clarify their powers to enable them to regulate and fund their waterways properly.

The powers sought are similar to those already used by other large inland navigation authorities, such as the Canal & River Trust, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority. In essence, the future maintenance and management of the waterway will be funded in a similar way to others, not based on one set of users, and those who benefit can be asked to contribute.

Why do we have a private Bill? The commissioners originally proposed to update their governing legislation in the 2000s using a Transport and Works Act order. They approached the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which rightly considered that the introduction of the proposed registration and charging schemes would be outside the powers of a TWAO, so the proposals did not proceed any further. Having consulted on updated proposals, the commissioners approached DEFRA again last year, but in October 2016, the Department confirmed that its position had not changed and that a TWAO could not be used. Its reasoning was that a TWAO could not be used to impose charges on navigation governed by primary legislation that does not itself contain charging provisions, as is the case for Middle Level navigation. It was therefore suggested that the commissioners should pursue a private Bill to update their powers.

I am sure that Members will agree that this is the right approach. It is welcome that we can debate these important subjects in our consideration of the Bill. Although this is the first opportunity for a wider debate in the House on this matter, the proposals will not come as a surprise to those who might be affected, as there has already been a wider consultation.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. May I put it to him that, at first sight, the Bill is an attempt to regularise the Middle Level vis-à-vis legislation for other navigation authorities, but what is missing from it—this might be different with secondary legislation—is any commensurate commitment to upgrade facilities that are similar to those of other navigation authorities? That is the Achilles heel of the Bill, and it is where it might need to be looked at again by this House or the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I begin with the remark that all politics is local. We are now discussing the Middle Level Bill, while earlier today we were talking about major geo-political issues, including the invoking of article 50. Such is the cornucopia of delights available in the House of Commons.

We should not divide on this Bill. It is important to have a full and comprehensive debate today, but it should then proceed to Committee so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) who so eloquently introduced the Bill as sponsor said, it can be looked at in greater detail.

I am a local Member of Parliament, but, as the Minister said, it has not been possible for Ministers directly affected by this Bill, principally my parliamentary neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who is a Government Whip, to speak to it. However, as Members will know, the waterways we are discussing meet the River Nene at the city of Peterborough, and I therefore have a direct connection with and interest in the debate. Incidentally, in Cambridgeshire it is the River Nene, whereas in Northamptonshire, across the county line, it is—for some bizarre reason—the River Nen.

I pay tribute to one of the petitioners, my constituent Chris Taylor of Newborough, who has been indefatigable in raising this important issue and holding the Middle Level Commissioners to account. Like him, I believe that the petition period was insufficient and that there has not been a proper debate, but my principal worry is that there has been no cost-benefit analysis.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay earlier, we are not talking about a navigation authority that is analogous with authorities such as the Broads Authority and other authorities throughout the country that provide better facilities—in fact, provide any facilities—and I think that legislating for a power to impose tolls and charges without upgrading those facilities would be a draconian and retrograde step, which is why, in my view, we need to debate the issue further in Committee.

I appreciate that it is imperative to regularise the legal basis for the navigation authority’s duties and responsibilities, with—as the Minister said—the proviso that the Government do not become involved in the detailed operational matters of the Middle Level Commissioners, but oversee their statutory duties. I understand that the Government broadly support the need to update and amend the existing legislation, on the basis of what is in the documentation. As the Minister said, it is very aged legislation. There is not just the 17th-century legislation that she mentioned; there are the Middle Level Acts of 1810 to 1874, the Nene Navigation Act 1753, the Land Drainage Act 1991, and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

As I said earlier, what we are discussing is not a traditional canal or river, but interconnected open drains. The land was drained in the 17th century to release it for agricultural and other uses. As it is below sea level, until then it was effectively an inland sea. As for the town of Whittlesey, the clue is in the name. It was pretty wet, and was not used greatly. However—of course I would say this, as the local Member of Parliament—it contains some of the finest agricultural land in Britain, if not Europe, because it is incredibly well irrigated. We must bear in mind that the Middle Level Commissioners differ substantially from the more traditional navigation authorities.

The key issue that has caused concern is not just the basic issue of charges, as covered in clause 3 and, potentially, clause 9, which deals with byelaws. I accept that the petitioners are in the minority, but they contend that their public rights of navigation—not exactly ancient rights, but very well-established historical rights, bestowed on them in the latter part of the 17th century by the Duke of Bedford, who was a major landowner to the east of Peterborough and in the fens as a whole—are being curtailed and reduced. Indeed, they contend, in their petition and in further papers, that those rights go back much further, beyond even Magna Carta in 1215: as far back as the 4th century. That is a major issue.

Let me give some more details of the petitioners’ complaint. We must bear it in mind that this is about charges on the 600 to 1,000 pleasure boats that use these 100 miles of waterways every year; it is not about commercial activity. I accept that in these straitened economic times public authorities have to look where they can to secure extra funding, and that it cannot just come from landowners, farmers and the taxpayer. I do not have an ideological aversion to further tolls and charges, therefore, but I do have an aversion to any unfairness to existing users of the facilities.

At the moment there are no services on this waterway: there are no water points, changing facilities, moorings, toilets, showers or collection points for rubbish. More importantly, notwithstanding the fact that secondary legislation might ameliorate the issue, at the moment that is not covered by the Bill and is not promised. That is an important point made in the documentation by the Residential Boat Owners Association and the National Bargee Travellers Association.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay rightly pointed out that there is a human rights legislation issue, because if we are curtailing the right to a family life under article 8 by removing the capacity of people to enjoy what is their home—a barge, for instance, or a pleasure cruiser—that is a wider legal issue. That could be explored further in Committee.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency near neighbour for giving way. Does he accept that this is not just a question of using the levies for fees for providing services, because essential bank maintenance is also needed? Unless the banks are properly maintained, in a worst-case scenario there could be appalling flooding with the banks giving way, because, as he rightly points out, this area was extensively drained in the 16th century. So it is not just a question of providing facilities; it is also a question of maintaining the fabric of the waterways.

[Mr Jackson]

May I add to the congratulations of the House on my hon. Friend’s birthday? If I may say so, he is pretty ageless—he has not aged during the 12 years I have been in Parliament—and felicitations to my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that flood prevention and flood amelioration are massively important; we agree on that.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I come from Somerset, and while I am not familiar with the exact area, my example is just the same. Surely any income that can be raised from navigation of the waterways would be welcomed, because currently, as I understand it, precious moneys raised through drainage rates and levies that ought to be going to vital flood prevention work to protect our precious farmland are being diverted to navigation works. This Bill is just tightening that up to correct this injustice.

[Mr Jackson]

I am mindful of time and know that other Members want to contribute, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), so I will wrap up—also the Whip is giving me the evil eye, but only in her most endearing way.

I defer to the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), and know that Somerset suffered the most appalling trauma of wide-scale flooding about five years ago. I do not think that it is mutually exclusive for us to be removing sunken boats, dredging and doing important infrastructure work that needs to be done, but it needs to be done in a more systematic way, and I am unconvinced about this private Bill, which seeks to be quite innocuous but is potentially quite draconian in what it imposes on people whose rights have been established for many hundreds of years.

It has been a pleasure to have this opportunity to represent Mr Taylor and some of the other people. If we are not here to represent unfashionable views of our constituents, we are wasting our time. In the course of the debate about this Bill, I hope that the petitioners and others with a key interest in the Middle Level will have the opportunity to have a cordial, productive meeting with the Middle Level Commissioners, and that some of those comments will be taken on board in Committee, so that the Bill will be improved. I hope that we can regularise the legislative necessity of the Bill while keeping faith with the people who are the lifeblood of the area—the pleasure boat users—because we need to look after their interests, too. I hope that we will find a mutually beneficial compromise in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

As a result of the Bill, owners of private waters that are not subject to the Middle Level Commissioners’ control will find themselves incorporated within the responsibilities of the commissioners, who will be able to use their regulatory powers in relation to what are currently private waters. That is an extension well beyond what one might have thought of as being the scope of the Bill. As my hon. Friend knows, being an experienced Member of this House, as soon as people get the opportunity to start legislating they always want to take more powers than they strictly need, which is one of the petitioners’ concerns.

[Mr Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is confusion about the duties and responsibilities of the authority as between navigation and dredging under the Bill? That needs to be clarified when the Bill goes into Committee.

[Mr Chope]

Again, that is a good point, and it has been raised in several of the petitions.

Mr Moore expresses another concern, in stating that he

“objects to Clause 8(3) because the wording follows that of the contentious British Waterways Act of 1983, section (8), which has led to years of litigation as to its effect, whereas the wording of the similar clause in the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2012 section (16) is far superior, and allows for no such ambiguity and potential attempted and unwarranted extension of powers. The wording ‘without lawful authority’ is also wholly inapplicable to refer to boats on public navigable waters, when the right to be on the waterways derives from the public right, and the proposed provisions for registration of boats does not change that. This was the burden of Environment Agency submissions in a recent case on the Thames, which was, in my submission, correct”.

So he thinks that as worded, clause 8(3) would not only be against the expressed policy of the Environment Agency, but

“would be unenforceable and ineffectual in law, contrary to the expectation of the Commissioners, and prejudicial to the rights of boaters.”

I hope that even if nothing else is sorted out in Committee, those issues raised by Mr Moore will be.

As we have heard, a petition has also come from the March cruising club, which has been submitted by Mr Harwood, the club harbourmaster. Apart from complaining about the inadequate consultation, he raises a number of issues. Following on from the history that has been outlined by a number of the participants in this debate, he says:

“Pleasure boats have had free navigational access to the Old River Nene, which forms a large navigational section of the Middle Level, from before 1215 protected by Magna Carta and many subsequent statutes and Royal Commissions. There are even Roman transcripts describing navigation along the Old River Nene as early as the 4th Century during the Roman occupation. The Old River Nene is a natural river and a Public Right of Navigation has existed since Time Immemorial and was first codified in the Magna Carta of 1215.”

Gangmasters Licensing Authority (Civil Fines)

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

This time last year, on 20 June 2012, I held a debate on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who is my constituency neighbour, assured the House that he had

“a package of proposed changes to the GLA, including…looking at the scope to use civil penalties.”

Indeed, he very kindly went on to say that I was right in calling for the ability to fine gangmasters. He said that the GLA board had “very few enforcement weapons” and that we needed

“a tier of measures for it to utilise.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 276WH.]

It therefore may surprise the House and you, Mr Hollobone, to learn that despite the Minister’s saying that that analysis was right, the Department’s own consultation now specifically excludes the tier of measures to which my right hon. Friend was referring.

We should remind ourselves of what is at stake. I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) in his place. He will know that the GLA was set up in 2004 after the tragedy of the Morecambe bay cockle pickers disaster. He has spoken most effectively in bringing these issues to the attention of the House previously. We are talking about legislation that is directed at protecting the most vulnerable people in society and particularly those working in the agricultural sector. In many cases, they are a long way from home, have difficulties with the language and are fearful of authority. They are therefore vulnerable people who do need protecting.

It is remarkable that the consultation brought forward by the Department seems to be excluding the measure that the Minister, in response to my debate last year, said was an important tool that was lacking and needed to be included. It may be helpful if I set out why I think that the Department has got itself into this situation. I think that it is in large measure down to another ministerial statement. We all like cross-departmental working, and it is very good that the Department is taking note of ministerial statements elsewhere. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), quite rightly articulated concerns about red tape. That is a concern that many hon. Members share. My right hon. Friend therefore set out a new test: it was a general rule that new powers to fine should not apply to firms with fewer than 250 people. There was good logic to bringing in that measure, but it was a general rule; it was not absolute. This Minister may want to clarify the position with his officials. Obviously, the measure has been signed off by Ministers, but there almost seems to be a bit of gold-plating whereby what is a general rule has been applied in absolute terms.

Of course, most gangmasters do not employ more than 250 people. Indeed, if they did, the existing powers would be confined just to those above 250, but we do not do that for the criminal powers, so is it not illogical that for criminal powers we say that they apply to the gangmaster population as a whole, yet for civil powers, where one assumes a lower test, we raise the bar and say that they apply only to gangmasters with more than 250 people working for them? That is at odds not only with what the Minister said to me this time last year in response to my debate, but with the existing legislation under which the Department is acting. It is also—dare I say it?—at odds with common sense, because if we look at the use of criminal powers, we see that it is clearly not working.

Let us take, for example, two recent cases in Northern Ireland. In those cases, the fines imposed on the gangmasters acting illegally and making large sums of money—often, gangmasters are not paying tax, and quite often they are linked to other crime, such as prostitution and counterfeiting—were just £500 apiece. I think that most hon. Members would accept that the profits that those gangmasters had made far exceeded the fines that were imposed by the courts. We have a strange situation in which we have criminal powers, which the GLA rarely uses. If a gangmaster is unlucky enough to be caught, they know that the fine is likely to be less than the profits that they have made. They know that, on most occasions, witnesses are very fearful of coming forward and therefore the number of prosecutions is very low. Last year, for example, there were just 15 prosecutions against gangmasters.

Let us put that in context. We currently have under way—I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the support that she has given—an operation in the fens, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) will be familiar with, Operation Pheasant. So far, it has raided 80 homes and it has a number of live inquiries, but it is finding the most horrendous issues. We had a case recently in Whittlesey in which migrant labour was living in a house and there was CCTV not just on the front and back doors but in the inside rooms in order that the gangmaster could control his labour force. We have had other cases of people living in a garage with an open sewer.

This is an issue not just for the vulnerable in communities such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough but for the local residents, because where there are high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation, there is antisocial behaviour. It is very difficult for people to stay in the house, so they tend to go out and street-drink. When they street-drink, we get urination on people’s front doors. I cited some particularly unpleasant and disturbing cases in the debate last year. I will not detain hon. Members by rerunning those, but it is very clear that there are issues of antisocial behaviour and legitimate concerns for the local population that flow back to our unwillingness to tackle gangmasters.

Therefore, I suggest to the House that the key way in which we should be tackling gangmasters is by hitting them in the area that they are most concerned about. That is in their pocket; it is through fines. That is the way in which we will change their behaviour, so I find it remarkable that the consultation from the GLA is excluding a tool that the Minister last year said was important, is gold-plating a legitimate concern of the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, and applying that in a bizarre and arbitrary way and is failing to address the legitimate concerns about antisocial behaviour with enforcement, because the criminal tools that are used are not working. They are rarely applied. The fact that there were just 15 prosecutions clearly shows that they are not working. Then when there are prosecutions, the level of the fine is derisory.

I say to this Minister that I find the situation quite disappointing. I, as a Member of Parliament, articulate real concerns about things affecting my constituency. The Home Secretary acts on those concerns with Operation Pheasant. We have good support from Cambridgeshire police—in the debate last night, I paid tribute to Inspector Sissons and the work that he is doing. I am keen that my local council do more, and I have been in active discussions to ensure that it uses its powers. I am very sympathetic about the difficulties of resourcing that the GLA has. We all know that the last Government left us with a huge level of debt. Although I believe that the GLA should be far better resourced—I think that that would be a good use of the Department’s budget—I am very sympathetic about the difficulties that the Department faces because of what was inherited. But surely the answer, if we have a problem in trying to resource it more, is to make it easier to prosecute—to make it easier to impose fines, because it is the fines that will change the behaviour of the gangmasters.

We are not talking about all gangmasters; there are perfectly respectable gangmasters, but we know that there are illegal gangmasters and heartbreaking abuses taking place in my constituency and the constituencies of hon. Members across the fens. Unwarranted pressure is being placed on local residents, who often have to bear the consequences of the antisocial behaviour that flows from the concentration of houses in multiple occupation and the lack of enforcement against illegal gangmasters, who often misleadingly attract people from overseas. Illegal gangmasters will go to Lithuania for example and say, “Come to the fens. You have a guaranteed job and guaranteed accommodation.” When the workers arrive, there is often only one, two or three days’ work before they exhaust their savings, are in debt and the gangmasters have control.

There are real issues and they were raised last year. Other Departments have gripped the problem and acted. The Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) is organising a workshop in the fens, in Wisbech, for councils, so that we can share best practice. Other Departments are acting, but the Department of the Minister who is here today is not. Not only is it not acting, but it is ignoring the assurances that I felt were given to me last year, in my interpretation of what the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said. In bringing this debate before the House again, I hope that the Minister here today will look again at his consultation and at whether the powers it equips the GLA with are adequate. If he wants to take this opportunity to announce additional resource for the fens, I will be delighted, but if he is not going to do that, what exactly is he going to do?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and fluent case. I pay tribute to his great campaigning work on illegal gangmasters. Does he agree that time is of the essence? The imperative is to do something soon, due to the free movement directive and the likely immigration of Romanians and Bulgarians next year. The Home Secretary has said how important reducing pull factors is, and measures on gangmasters would be part of that portfolio of policies, so the urgency is very much apparent.

[Stephen Barclay]

My neighbour and hon. Friend is right; there is urgency. I am sure that he shares my frustration for that reason. A number of us have been raising concerns for some time. I secured a debate on gangmasters last year. I raised concerns in the main Chamber. I have been to see the Home Secretary on a number of occasions. The police inspector came to see Lin Homer, the top official of HMRC, with me last year. For cross-departmental government to work, DEFRA needs to come to the party and get involved and the purpose of today’s debate is to draw the consultation before the Minister more firmly to his attention. I think that the ministerial statement of the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, has been misinterpreted.

I hope that the Minister here today can reassure us, but if not, ultimately I hope that he can address the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough: what will the Minister’s Department do through the GLA to effect change on the ground? If we are to maintain community cohesion, the GLA matters. To address the antisocial behaviour that flows from the consequences and criminal actions of illegal gangmasters, the GLA must be part of the action taken. I therefore hope that the Minister can reassure the House that the comments of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire, will form part of the consultation and the response to tackle illegal gangmasters operating in the fens.