Oral Answers to Questions

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

2. What discussions her Department has had with Glasgow City Council on projections for Glasgow’s air quality and compliance with EU air quality regulations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

As the hon. Lady is aware, air quality in Scotland is a devolved issue, so I have not had direct conversations with Glasgow City Council, but I saw the Scottish Environment Minister on Monday. Officials are in regular contact with Scottish Government officials about the revision of UK nitrogen oxide air quality plans, including those for the Glasgow urban area.

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the Minister for that response. Given the recent European Commission ruling relating to Client Earth, does the Minister consider it wise, with ongoing issues on Hope Street in Glasgow, that Glasgow City Council expedites its action on this issue in its air quality action plan?

[Rory Stewart]

I reconfirm that this is very much a devolved issue and one on which officials from Glasgow City Council can work closely with our departmental officials to resolve, but I do not wish to stand at this Dispatch Box and dictate to Glasgow.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

With reference to Glasgow.

[Rory Stewart]

I pay tribute to the Mayor of London for his work on air quality. I am unable, however, to connect directly the work of the Mayor of London to the question about Glasgow.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am glad that you recognise my Glasgow credentials, Mr Speaker, because sometimes my classic cockney accent confuses people.

I welcome the Minister to his place. In any such discussions with Glasgow, I ask that he takes into account river traffic. The Thames is busier than the Clyde, but vessels on the Clyde do contribute to emissions. Will he ensure that he remembers that addition?

[Rory Stewart]

Among the different sources of nitrogen dioxide emissions, river traffic is indeed a substantial emitter. Glasgow City Council and officials from the Department will take that into account.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister to his place. Last year, the Government wrote a letter to all local authorities, trying to blame them for the 29,000 deaths that air pollution is causing every year in the UK and saying that any fines imposed by the EU for failure to comply with the air quality directive would have to be paid by them. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the Government who are solely responsible for compliance and any fines arising, will the Secretary of State write again to all local authorities to accept her responsibility and overturn her previous threatening letter?

[Rory Stewart]

I am very happy to discuss that matter in detail, but as the shadow Minister said—[Interruption.] “Say yes”, it is suggested from the Opposition Front Bench. As the shadow Minister has acknowledged, we need to tackle this issue in partnership with local authorities. The prime responsibility needs to reside there because the sources of the emissions are quite different from one local authority to another, and therefore the solutions will be different from one local authority to another.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

3. How many flood defence schemes are planned to begin construction under the Government’s six-year flood defence programme in 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to prioritise flood prevention and introduce a climate change adaptation plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

Our £2.3 billion capital investment programme will better protect 300,000 homes through a range of flood risk management measures. York will benefit from the programme to the tune of £5 million. We already have a climate change adaptation plan—the national adaptation programme—and it is currently being assessed by the adaptation sub-committee: we expect to learn from its report.

[Rachael Maskell]

In my constituency, 2,053 homes experience a medium to very high risk of flooding, as does York city centre. Where are the Government in implementing a flood reinsurance scheme to give my constituents some assurances?

[Rory Stewart]

As I mentioned, £5 million has been committed specifically to flood defences in York. The flood re scheme is currently on track. It is an extremely impressive but complex scheme that will provide insurance to the most vulnerable and at-risk people within your constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

Not mine.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost of living in rural Britain.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

Reducing the cost of living in rural areas depends primarily on overcoming the challenges of distance and sparsity. That means boosting productivity and investing in a strong economy and infrastructure, such as road, rail and high-speed broadband. The rural fuel rebate means that some of the most rural areas now benefit from a 5p per litre fuel discount.

[Alex Cunningham]

People in villages such as Stillington, Carlton, Thorpe Thewles and Redmarshall in my constituency have seen their buses reduced to the odd one here and there, or they have gone altogether, as private companies have pulled out because local authorities no longer have the money to subsidise them. I am sure the Minister agrees that affordable transport links are essential for rural areas, so what can I tell my constituents that the Government will do to connect them to the rest of the area?

[Rory Stewart]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that connections of any sort, whether digital or bus connections, are vital for isolated rural areas. Some councils have found solutions to that and there is a community bus fund, championed by the Department for Transport. I look forward to talking in detail to the hon. Gentleman, if he is interested, about the problems in his constituency.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The Minister mentions the rural economy in the context of broadband. I quite agree that we need to boost broadband, but does he agree that we really need to send a signal to BT to enhance its efforts to ensure that we are properly connected in rural areas?

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Working with BT involves the work of every single constituency MP to ensure that we get the information on which areas will be connected and we hold British Telecom to account for the more than £700 million of public money that the Government are investing in a highly impressive programme in rural broadband roll-out.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Minister, like me, a compulsive listener to “Farming Today”? Is he aware that many experts are saying on “Farming Today” that the cost of living in rural communities will be affected in the long term by climate change and how it impacts on the crops we can grow successfully in the rural economy? Is he worried about that? Is he talking about it, or have this Government given up on climate change worries?

[Rory Stewart]

Climate change is baked into every aspect of this Department’s work. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the risk assessment conducted in 2012 on climate change adaptation focused specifically on flood risk, but he is correct that there are other issues we need to look at—and look at relentlessly—which is why we look forward to providing a full response to the assessment provided by the climate change adaptation sub-committee.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

There can be no question about it: it does cost more to live in rural areas compared with urban areas, so I very much welcome the reduction in fuel duty, the cap on petrol prices and equalising the council tax. All these things are extremely helpful, but transport must be central to this. Twenty-five per cent. of people in my constituency do not have cars. Will the Minister take steps to look into community bus services, such as Bradies taxis, which I launched last week in my constituency? They are at the end of a telephone and will go and pick people up from their rural locations.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of the issues of rural areas. The Department for Transport launched an interesting scheme towards the end of the last Parliament to provide support for community transport schemes. If he wishes to discuss it in more detail, I would encourage the council to apply to the Department for Transport for that fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

The Government are taking a series of steps to reduce air pollution. We are tackling pollution particularly from transport on a number of fronts. For example, we are transforming public transport and private vehicles by supporting the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and encouraging sustainable transport by investing in cycling. We are also tackling pollution from industry.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Minister for his reply. The common good matters nowhere more than in respect of the air we breathe. Will he commit today to drop all objections to European standards on air pollution—unless they are on the basis that the standards are too lenient?

[Rory Stewart]

I look forward to discussing in more detail with the hon. Lady exactly which European standards she is talking about—concentration levels or total emission levels, for example. If she is talking specifically about nitrogen dioxide, this Government are absolutely committed to meeting the EU targets as soon as possible.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Johnson Matthey, the world’s leading manufacturer of autocatalysts, which is internationally recognised for its diesel trap technology. Will he do all he can to ensure that the tax regime in this country and emissions regulations that apply here allow for the deployment of the latest technology in this field?

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. and learned Friend will not expect me to comment on a Treasury issue in relation to taxation, but I would like to pay tribute to the work of Johnson Matthey. My hon. and learned Friend has suggested that we meet, and I look forward to meeting this company with its innovative technology as soon as possible.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Fifty-nine years ago, the former Denton urban district council was one of the first local authorities in the land to sign up to the Clean Air Act 1956. Back then, we had thick pea souper smogs that could be seen; today, air pollution is an invisible killer. Is it not time that this Government adopted a new Clean Air Act fit for the 21st century?

[Rory Stewart]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the work done over the last 60 years by parties on both sides of the House to address air pollution. It is very striking that sulphur dioxide is down by 88%, while we have halved emissions in particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. More is to be done, particularly on nitrogen dioxide, and I look forward to working very closely with the hon. Gentleman on that subject.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

13. What support her Department plans to provide for bees and pollinators through the national pollinator strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

T5. The black country’s canal network is an important part of our industrial heritage, supports a variety of wildlife and hosts many leisure facilities. Will the Minister update the House on what is being done to clean up our inland waterways?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

I could not agree more strongly with my hon. Friend on the importance of waterways. Nearly 10,000 miles of rivers and internal waterways have been cleaned up; phosphate pollution is down by one fifth and ammonia down by one sixth; and water companies will be investing £3.5 billion over the next five years in improving our water quality.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

T7. Up to 4,000 properties are at risk of flooding in my constituency, so the Government’s announcement of an extra £7.5 million for flood defences in Great Grimsby was welcome. However, that figure includes a £5 million black hole of unallocated funding and my constituents are worried that their homes may be flooded again this year. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can get this funding shortfall sorted out and start protecting people from the risk of flooding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T10. Many of my constituents in rural areas desperately need faster broadband speeds to run their businesses and create jobs in an area where unemployment is 50% higher than the average. The Under-Secretary referred earlier to planned investment, but rather than have my constituents wait years under current plans will he meet the providers again and tell them to get a move on?

[Rory Stewart]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the progress on superfast broadband has been pretty remarkable; we have gone from 40% to 80%, and we will be at 95% by 2017. If there are specific issues related to his constituency, I would, again, be very happy to sit down to discuss them in detail.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

T9. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. British beer is the best in the world, and our beer sales at home and abroad are booming. That is good for British brewers and for British farmers, connecting grain to glass to the lips of beer lovers across the world. What can we do to encourage more beer exports?

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the Westminster Hall debate on food waste on 11 June 2015:

[Rory Stewart]

Food to the value of £108 billion and the one in eight jobs connected to food and farming in the UK are connected to what every hon. Member in this Chamber deeply believes in, whether it be poverty alleviation, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys; the legislative programmes advocated by the hon. Member for Bristol East; the important arguments on the environment and resource depletion advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; or the civil society examples from Zero Waste Scotland produced by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West.

[Official Report, 11 June 2015, Vol. 596, c. 204WH.]

Letter from Rory Stewart:

An error has been identified in the speech I made in the Westminster Hall debate on food waste.

The correct response should have been:

[Rory Stewart]

Food to the value of £103 billion and the one in eight jobs connected to food and farming in the UK are connected to what every hon. Member in this Chamber deeply believes in, whether it be poverty alleviation, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys; the legislative programmes advocated by the hon. Member for Bristol East; the important arguments on the environment and resource depletion advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; or the civil society examples from Zero Waste Scotland produced by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West.

Food Waste

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

I pay great tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for the leadership that she has shown on this subject for a long time, and for raising the issue again so powerfully. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope; this is only my second time standing here.

There is basically broad agreement in this room and around the country on the importance of the subject. Increasingly, Britain has been a global leader in tackling food waste. We need to do more, but there is a great deal of achievement for us to be proud of, particularly achievement by non-governmental organisations, the charitable sector and politicians such as the hon. Member for Bristol East over the past few years, and particularly since 2007.

As all hon. Members have pointed out, food waste is an issue requiring urgent action worldwide. Many Members have remarked that about one third of the food in the world is wasted. It is a tremendous waste not only of food but of water, energy, land and money. Agricultural land, for example, consumes about 70% of the world’s fresh water. In an era of rising population and global warming, we have a strong moral obligation to conserve those resources. I know that many people—not necessarily in this room, but in debates on this issue—focus on the economic arguments, but at the heart of the argument about waste, particularly food waste, is the depletion and degradation of precious resources. As hon. Members have pointed out, half of all food waste is produced by households: it amounts to nearly 7 million tonnes of food, worth about £12.5 billion a year, or £60 a month for an average family. Huge tribute must be paid to those who have taken action to address the issue, such as Love Food Hate Waste.

The hon. Member for Bristol East set the parameters for this debate. She provided a fantastic overview of the problems and progress since 2007, including Government legislation and the actions of NGOs. I will not recap those arguments, but she seemed to focus on four issues that were most urgent, in terms of my response as the Minister. One of them was about the contribution to the UK charitable sector that could be made if we were better at finding ways to get food to charities. She produced the astonishing figure, which I would be happy to explore further, of hundreds of millions of pounds in potential donations to charities. She discussed the notion of a good samaritan Act. One has been passed in the United States, but it has not yet been tested in law there, and she pointed out some of the issues involved. In terms of my answer to other hon. Members, the hon. Lady has laid out some of the complexities involved in the issue.

The hon. Lady also mentioned food waste on farms, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We discussed that in great detail. The Government have been considering food waste on farms—waste that occurs before food reaches the supermarket—along with NGOs. We are considering whole crop purchasing, which could address the issue of people rejecting strangely coloured tomatoes. Take the example of class A, class B and class C tomatoes; one could imagine an individual retailer distributing them according to whether they were to be sold loose in a shop, to be processed, or to go into soups and sauces. Clearly, we need to do much more of that. The gleaning movement has brought attention to how much is left in the fields unnecessarily.

The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned supermarkets not reporting in detail which individual supermarket has which amount of waste. In other words, the data are grouped together by retailers into a single unit, from which it is difficult for us to disinter those data. Her argument, which was about transparency and specificity—how on earth are we supposed to hold people to account if we cannot work out how much individual people are doing?—seems to me to be a good one.

The hon. Lady also talked about the importance of targets and how they might be used to drive action. One striking thing about the United Kingdom, looking back to 2007, is that we seem to have exceeded comfortably most of the targets that we have set ourselves so far. One debate that goes back and forth in the European Union is whether such targets are achievable, and what their marginal costs are, but we in the United Kingdom can take a certain amount of confidence from our ability to exceed those targets in the past.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I accept that we have exceeded the targets, but there is then the question of whether the targets were ambitious enough. It is easy to exceed targets if they are set very low. Perhaps we ought to try to raise our game by setting ambitious targets for the next phase of Courtauld.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Yes. As the hon. Lady will realise, the challenge of setting the right target is that it is difficult, thinking forward to 2030, to work out what is desirable, feasible and affordable, and what the different cost-benefit calculations will be. There will always be a tendency on the part of any Government, whether the previous Labour Government or ours, to set targets that are achievable. Equally, we need to be pushed to work harder; we need ambitious targets to make us get out of bed in the morning and shove towards them. I am happy to sit down and examine those targets in detail and talk through the constraints.

The more good ideas people have and the more technological solutions are developed, the easier it will be for us to meet those targets. To take an example from the debate on Tuesday with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about targets for nitrogen dioxide emissions, a leap forward to electric vehicles would totally transform our ability to meet those targets if we do not make enough progress in 10 years. It is not quite the same with food waste, but there are many ideas. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) pointed out the numerous innovations in food that could help us reach those targets. I am happy to discuss that in more detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) discussed fantastic models for community shops. I want to talk about that more generally at the end of this debate. Much of what the Department is taking away from this debate is that the best examples are at local level. It is not a question of civil servants from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or Ministers having all the bright ideas; we should be listening much more attentively to what is being generated by the NGO sector, community shops and individual constituencies, and learning from them.

My hon. Friend made a good point about the French model. He and the hon. Member for Bristol East discussed the astonishing statistics and why France appears to be able to conserve such a staggeringly high proportion of food. One thing that I genuinely do not know and would be very interested to talk about is the extent to which French fiscal instruments, particularly the French ability to count food donations and donations in kind against their tax bills, does or does not provide a perverse incentive; we need to focus on that. If the result of those instruments is to increase the amount of excess food that the French produce, because they are confident that they can then receive donation-in-kind tax benefits from disposing of it, that is not something we would want to encourage. We need to be very careful with these tax incentives to ensure that trying to do something that we want to do—making sure that that food gets to people who really need it—does not end up encouraging people, in a perverse way, to produce more food than they need to.

[Kerry McCarthy]

In response to the Lords Committee’s inquiry, the Government said they would not reassess their opposition to fiscal measures to increase food redistribution before considering the European Commission’s communication on sustainability of the food system. I understand that that communication has now been shelved—we had waited quite a long while for it to be published—and that a more ambitious circular economic strategy will be published later this year. Will the Minister take part in discussions on whether we can include incentives for food waste distribution in that strategy? I appreciate that it is very early days for him in his job, but I urge him to do so.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I will take on that message. However, having got into trouble on Tuesday for speculating about Treasury fiscal measures, I will not say anything about that issue at all. Nevertheless, the point is taken; we need to concentrate hard on this matter. Basically, the way that we will make progress on this issue is by sitting down with people who know a lot about the subject, such as the hon. Lady, and getting them to hold us to account and push us to do better. I am very happy for that to happen.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talked about farm-gate food waste; we discussed how whole-crop purchasing should help, and it will be interesting to see whether we make as much progress on that as we hope to. We talked a little about the French model. It would be interesting to know whether there are things that the UK can contribute to other countries, as well as things that other countries can contribute to us. For instance, I would be interested to know whether our supermarket ombudsman model is something that we might want to share with other European countries as an example of best practice. There are things we can learn from other countries, but there are things that the supermarket ombudsman here is doing well to cut down on food waste, even by signalling to retailers in advance the dangers of a supermarket ombudsman intervention. Perhaps other EU member states could learn from that.

The hon. Lady asked what my Government colleagues were doing on food poverty, food waste and charities. The answer is that the Cabinet Office is joint chair, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of a redistribution food round table; the Department for Education has a school food plan, having introduced, as she will know, universal free infant school meals last September; and the Department of Health provides “eatwell plate” guidance. There is also an NHS Choices website, which helps with menu guides.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West gave a really good series of examples from Zero Waste Scotland. I would like to talk a little more about this issue in detail at the end of the debate, but Zero Waste Scotland is a very good example of the range of initiatives across the UK, some of which are funded by Government, some by the Heritage Lottery Fund, and some by philanthropic donations, which are changing the way we look at food waste.

I was particularly struck by the hon. Lady’s intervention on the subject of composting. It is absolutely true that traditionally, when we look at the hierarchy of waste in relation to food, we prefer to eat food; our next preference is to have animals eat it; and then we eventually consider how we might extract energy from it, for example through anaerobic digestion. However, her point that food put into composting can save endangered peatlands is a very important environmental argument, and a real reminder that we need to keep looking at issues really broadly. One of the dangers in a lot of discussions in this area is that we can miss potential environmental benefits by getting so tightly attached to a particular model or hierarchy that we fail to consider, for example, the relationship between composting and peatlands. I do not want to move to a world in which we encourage people to over-invest in composting at the expense of eating, but it is worth bearing in mind that composting has not only an anaerobic digestion energy benefit, but a benefit to endangered habitats. I also liked the reference to doggy-bags; the hon. Lady made a very good argument for them.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said that there were many challenges, and many things with which she was uncomfortable or unhappy. Of course, I am delighted that she welcomes the 25-year strategy, although I note that she has concerns about its content. So long as I am fortunate enough to be a Minister, we shall not step back from the subject of waste. A great deal of progress has been made. I would be delighted to meet the industry representatives she mentioned.

The hon. Lady asked specific questions about Europe. I am going to the Environment Council in Luxembourg on Monday. Clearly, European negotiations are extremely complex and we must ensure that we get different Government Departments to agree, so I am not in a position to make promises about exactly what we can deliver. However, our Department will certainly try to be thought-leaders and challenge other people in this field, and we will try to get what I hope will be ambitious responses from that European process.

The specific question about the Waste and Resources Action Programme and its charitable funding brings me to the core of this whole discussion. WRAP is a really impressive charitable organisation. It receives Government funding; this year, it received about £13 million. It employs about 200 people. The Government are not in a position to make promises about continuing funding a specific charity. However, WRAP seems to do a very good job, and on the basis of its performance to date, I reckon that it would be in a very strong position to continue to bid for support. WRAP has also been very good at diversifying and finding in-kind donations, which has had an added benefit: in some ways, it has pursued programmes in quite an edgy and creative way, which it might not have done before it applied to broader sources of funding. WRAP is certainly very impressive.

The Back-Bench Members who have spoken in this debate and are still sitting in front of me—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion, for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, and for Bristol East—represent four different parties in Parliament. I am surprised that the fifth party is not present; I am not quite sure where the Liberal Democrats are in this debate. Nevertheless, I am very proud that there is a Conservative representative, a Green representative, a Scottish National party representative and a Labour representative here in Westminster Hall. Their presence is a reminder of how much importance we should attach to parliamentary work on this issue. The hon. Member for Bristol East pointed out how landfill tax, for example, has totally transformed recycling and waste. That is a very good example of the fact that Parliament has some levers and can bring about change.

The hon. Lady gave a good example from Belgium that shows that civil society and Government working together, rather than alone, is the key to resolving these issues. She talked about how petitions drove the Belgian process. To put that in context, the 200,000 people who signed that petition in Belgium, which is a country with a population of—

[Kerry McCarthy]

That was in France.

[Rory Stewart]

Ah. So there was no Belgian petition?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Belgians were the first to pass the law on food waste in May 2014, but the example I gave about the bleach being poured into the skips and the related petition was from France, and the French law on food waste has just gone through.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady; I stand corrected. I was getting my Belgian and French petitions confused. But the conceptual point I wanted to make is that this process, whether in France or in Belgium, is about driving civil society actions, through petitions, alongside Government action.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Minister for his response, and for the detail that he is going into. Will he clarify what he thinks the obstacles would be to a piece of legislation that looked something like the Bill that the hon. Member for Bristol East brought before the House, or like the French model? Are they technical obstacles, which we can clarify, or are they ideological obstacles to do with regulation? It would be really helpful to know.

[Rory Stewart]

I am a little bit reluctant to get drawn into the detail of all this at the moment, but a series of questions would have to be answered before we could go ahead with that legislation. Take the good samaritan legislation in the United States. Given that it has not been challenged so far; given that most retailers in the UK do not seem to be indicating that the major obstacle to taking action or improving performance is a concern about being sued over food safety issues; and given that the Food Standards Agency would have to continue to exercise its legislative powers anyway, and that if someone unfortunately got food poisoning from food that had been disposed of, it would remain a responsibility of the Government—and, unfortunately, indirectly, of the retailer, probably—it is not clear to me at the moment that a good samaritan Act is necessarily the way to go.

I am being shifty about the next set of issues, because they relate to the Treasury and to fiscal instruments, which are for the Treasury to consider, and I do not wish to get whacked for speculating on them.

That brings me back to civil society and central Government. The key to all this— we have made more progress than anyone else in Europe in this respect—is the impressive role played by NGOs, such as the Real Junk Food Project, mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; WRAP, which the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned; FareShare; and Feedback. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned Tristram Stuart, who is an extraordinary phenomenon. He has succeeded in combining his own personal lifestyle as a freegan with leading the collection of waste food and writing a best-selling book, and with his understanding of the intricacies of both national and European Union legislation and his attachment to technology. That is a really good example of where Britain is doing well.

The consequences of the work done by NGOs can be seen. We should also pay tribute to the previous Government for their funding to get WRAP off the ground. That is another good example of how things can be driven forward, and of the way that legislation, UK performance and global indicators can be shaped by such civil society debates. The app piloted by Tesco is the latest great example of people coming up with creative technological solutions that can go straight into a retailer. In addition—this is the point at which I sound like a crusty old Tory—this stuff is also good for the UK economy, because a lot of people are now exporting these ideas as consultants, taking British thought-leadership to other countries and showing how our approach to food waste can be replicated in other places. Of the extraordinary and impressive 21% reduction in household food waste that we have achieved, probably 40% has been achieved through the kind of awareness campaigns and civil society campaigns that have been mentioned. We do not want to minimise that in any way.

A decade of work to tackle food waste has given us much more knowledge of why and where food waste happens. We have tried and tested approaches that have delivered significant reductions. We now need to go further. Waste must be tackled across the whole value chain, and not just in the UK. We may need to start thinking about the value chain stretching into other countries. For example, if we are eating Kenyan food we have a moral obligation, in a sense, to the Kenyan farmers producing it, and to food waste in places where our supermarket ombudsman cannot stretch at the moment.

Food waste has a close relationship with sustainability and food security. The subject is central. Food, metaphorically and literally, is the energy of our lives. It is intimately connected to our soil, water and air, and to our habitats and our landscape. Again, speaking as a crusty Tory, it is also important to our economy. Millions of people work in this sector.

[Angela Smith]

I am listening with great interest to the Minister. He is coming remarkably close to endorsing Food 2030. May I ask once again, what is the Government’s strategic plan on food and farming, and when will we hear more detail about it?

[Rory Stewart]

The answer is that I am going to evade that question. We do not yet have that plan, and I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Lady a deadline on it, but I promise her that we are thinking hard about the subject. I am happy to sit down with her and talk about where we have got to with that thought and take on any suggestions that she has.

Food to the value of £108 billion and the one in eight jobs connected to food and farming in the UK are connected to what every hon. Member in this Chamber deeply believes in, whether it be poverty alleviation, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys; the legislative programmes advocated by the hon. Member for Bristol East; the important arguments on the environment and resource depletion advanced by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion; or the civil society examples from Zero Waste Scotland produced by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West.[Official Report, 15 June 2015, Vol. 597, c. 1-MC.]

I want to end with a huge invitation. I do not see why this need be a party political issue. There is obviously an enormous amount of knowledge in this room and I should be delighted to sit down with anybody who has good ideas about what we could do to tackle something that matters deeply to British citizens, the food industry and the packaging industry, and which matters deeply in respect of the resources on which our biosphere depends.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered tackling food waste.

Air Pollution (London)

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

It is a great privilege to have my first opportunity to speak in Westminster Hall on this subject. The attendance is fantastic. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing the debate. She expressed eloquently many of the reasons why this is such a deeply important issue. Part of the problem, as she said, is that we are considering an invisible substance—the air that we breathe. I also particularly welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who spoke powerfully about his experience as an asthmatic and made a great contribution by bringing brevity and common sense to our discussion.

Poor air quality is incredibly serious. As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington pointed out, air is not simply an invisible substance, but is the very heart of our breathing and our organic matter. We are only just beginning to understand the processes that affect air quality. I have a lot of sympathy for her argument, but I want to pick up on two small points of fact, to frame the debate. First, it is not the case that when she was growing up the air quality in London was somehow better and that there is more childhood asthma because air quality has declined since she was young. There are significant challenges for air quality in London at present, but, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East pointed out, it has improved significantly. Since 1970, PM levels have fallen by 70% and nitrogen dioxide levels by 62%. There is an enormous amount still to do, but we should not believe that it is somehow worse now than in the past. Things have been improving; we should work to improve them more quickly.

Although this may sound like a petty point, we do not spend £16 billion a year on health costs connected to this issue. That is the estimated figure for social costs. The amount spent on related healthcare costs is approximately 100th of that. It is not that there are not significant health costs—there are, possibly running into hundreds of millions of pounds—but when we are thinking about the implications for public policy, we do not want that figure of £16 billion in lights.

The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington raised the issue of London’s carbon footprint. That is linked to another major complexity, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), namely the relationship between carbon emissions and nitrogen dioxide emissions from engines.

I turn now to the specific points made by the many Members who have spoken today. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) mentioned Horn Lane. It is a highly complex situation. A range of different industrial plants operates there, including a cement works and a waste transfer station, all increasing the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere. Some mitigating measures could be introduced, ranging from walls to absorb particulate matter to cleaning the tyres of vehicles moving in and out of the stations in the area. Transport for London and Ealing Council have been looking at some technical issues, including using bus lanes to move road-cleaning vehicles more readily, and the Government have offered support to the council if it is interested in applying for road-cleaning vehicles. It is a serious issue, but we have a clear idea of possible mitigating measures. I encourage the hon. Lady to work with me to put pressure on the council to bring those measures in.

[Dr Huq]

Is not part of the problem that local authorities are punished by EU fines if they do not meet the targets, but do not have the power to do anything? Our manifesto promised to put £30 billion of devolved spending behind the issue. That is not happening now. Does the Minister have any plans for anything like it?

[Rory Stewart]

Specifically on Horn Lane, I am afraid that I disagree slightly with the hon. Lady. Without wishing to be too controversial, I think that the local authority could have done a little more. For example, Government grants were available for road-sweeping equipment—I personally would have liked the council to apply for that money—and there could have been more imagination and flexibility on using bus lanes for road-sweeping equipment. However, I am happy to take the matter up in more detail with her. Similarly, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his constituents to talk through the specific issues related to plants in his constituency.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave a fantastic speech that put London in context: it was the first city of the world in the 19th century, the first city to industrialise and the first post-industrial city. Colleagues in the Department for Transport will be interested in his specific proposals about taxis, and I am happy to talk to him about those. Speed bumps are also important and worth looking at. I join him in paying tribute to his constituent who has led the campaign by Clean Air in London.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) gave striking statistics about awareness in schools and put forward some good ideas about how we can work towards better communication on the issue. He asked whether total ambient emissions are reflected in permits. My understanding from my officials is that they are. If he or his constituents have discovered a specific case in which they are not, he may by all means come back to me so that we can follow that up, but the guidance should address total ambient emissions.

[Tom Brake]

My understanding is that when the Environment Agency looks at extra emissions from a particular plant it can do so only against the background level and cannot take into account the totality of emissions from a number of plants in an area, which might exceed permitted levels of pollution.

[Rory Stewart]

I am happy to follow that up in more detail. It is possible there is a distinction here between the responsibilities of the Environment Agency, which focuses on industrial plants, and those of DEFRA, which focuses on air quality in general.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) raised a number of important issues. I liked his striking example of two extra tube trains a week representing the population growth in London. He emphasised the need to increase the use of the river, although there are issues around pollutants even from river-borne vehicles, which account for a substantial percentage of nitrogen dioxide emissions in London.

Electric cars must be central, because if there is a single technology that can address many of these issues—air pollutants, public health and carbon emissions—it is them. The Government have introduced a number of quite striking measures, ranging from working with Formula E, to providing incentives to electric car manufacturers to locate in the west midlands and looking at charging points, including motorway charging points, for electric vehicles. I agree that electric vehicles are the most exciting area, and it would be fantastic to work with my hon. Friend to push us harder and to challenge us to do more.

That brings us to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who mentioned the Mogden sewage works and, in particular, the quantity and covering of the storm tanks. Again, I would be delighted to take up the request to meet her and her constituents. If we are lucky enough to get the Thames tideway tunnel through, it may be able to deal with some of those factors—

[Ruth Cadbury]

indicated dissent.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Lady reckons it will not, so I am happy to give way to her.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The Mogden sewage works are upstream of the proposed tunnel, so they are not included in the proposals, which will, therefore, have no impact. At current capacity, Mogden will still be discharging dilute sewage into the Thames.

[Rory Stewart]

I clearly have a lot to learn from the hon. Lady about Mogden sewage works, and I look forward to having a detailed conversation about them with officials.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) mentioned HGV movements. Again, we had a striking statistic. He estimates that HGV movements will happen every 25 seconds under the HS2 proposals. He has a great sense of what we should do, literally, about HS2—he used the phrase “bury HS2”. Again, I am happy to look at the issues in detail.

That illustrates the incredible number of challenges around pollutants and air pollution in London. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, we would, in many ways, wish to support such proposals. HS2 could have considerable environmental benefits if it can move people out of vehicles. At the same time, however, it could create immense air pollution in London during its construction.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made a wonderful broadcast for his campaign to be Mayor. He said something that it is difficult to disagree with, and which I would very much like to get behind: we want to encourage parents and children to walk, rather than drive, to school. Of course, doing that is easier said than done, but it would address issues around obesity and public health. Also, those idling engines outside schools emit nitrogen dioxide at an extraordinary intensity, and it would be sensible to address that.

Investment in cycling also seems sensible. TfL has produced some impressive and startling statistics on the increase over the last five years in the number of people cycling, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is correct that more can be done.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that sustained investment in public transport is essential to deal with not only congestion, but air quality in London? I am thinking of strategic river crossings in east London, where, if we have investment in extra roads, which is often seen by some as a panacea for congestion and poor air quality, we will also need, at a minimum, to have sustained investment in public transport so that we can continue the modal shift from private vehicles to public transport.

[Rory Stewart]

That is absolutely right. These are issues of incredibly complex modelling. As the hon. Gentleman implies, the construction of a new bridge raises a series of new issues. Investment in public transport is essential, and I think TfL takes that on board.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), made a number of striking arguments. I do not want to get too much into the details of where Oxford Street stands in international rankings. As he said, there are a number of issues about hourly measurements and mean average estimates. As somebody who lived in Kabul, in Afghanistan, for three and a half years, I find it difficult to believe that the levels of particulate matter in Oxford Street are higher than those we experienced there. As he said, the more legitimate comparison is with developed European cities, and we need to make sure that London is moving in the right direction.

The issues of fuel duty, nitrogen dioxide and emission-based pricing in general are important. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to pre-empt the Treasury or to start disrupting markets by talking about such fiscal instruments, but he is right that they are, logically, one thing a responsible Government should investigate in looking at a panoply of responses to emissions.

European standards were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East. It is, of course, correct that we owe Europe a debt of gratitude in many ways for holding to account not only us, but 17 European countries that are in breach of their nitrogen dioxide thresholds.

We should recognise that the problem of pollution has faced London since the beginning of the 19th century. In many ways, the issues we face today are the end of nearly 200 years of struggling with pollution. As early as 1813, particles of carbon, dust and even faecal matter were so thick in the streets of London that it was not possible to see across the street. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, the smog in December 1952 managed to kill 4,000 people in just four days. That is where we are coming from in London.

Since then, we have severely restricted coal-burning in central London and introduced catalytic converters in vehicles. We have reduced sulphur dioxide emissions by 88%, we have reduced particulate matter by 70% and we have reduced nitrogen dioxide by 62% since 1970. Particulate matter is now below the EU-defined threshold. However, there is, as right hon. and hon. Members said, much more to be done.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister is giving a very thorough answer to all our points, but many Members raised the issue of Heathrow. Will he address it directly? What concerns do the Government have about air pollution at Heathrow, particularly in the light of its possible expansion?

[Rory Stewart]

The responsibility of DEFRA—I am slightly evading the issue, because I am not going to take a grand stance on Heathrow—is indeed to police air quality and air pollution in London. We will continue to exercise our responsibilities—says he, evading the issue.

I was particularly struck by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park focused on non-road mobile machinery and the potential there to reduce emissions by up to 40%. It is worth looking at that. There is also the issue of domestic and industrial boilers. We have focused a lot on vehicle movements, but there is potential in other areas.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brent North that Europe has done a great deal, but I am disappointed that, three weeks ago, we were not able to get other European member states to address the fact that the Euro 6 engines are not performing outside a laboratory. If we could get agreement on that, it would make a huge difference.

Although some progress has been made, each new step is becoming more and more difficult. We are not dealing simply with one issue, such as diesel cars, but with a dozen different issues, all of which contribute almost equally to diesel emissions.

[Tom Brake]

I hope I did not miss this, and I hope the Minister is not being evasive, but when will the Government publish their air quality strategy?

[Rory Stewart]

I do not have an answer for the right hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to sit down and talk through the details. We are certainly bringing together an air quality strategy, but I do not have a date for him.

To conclude, there are dozens of measures we need to take. This is a highly complex issue. However, I am very open to ideas from anybody in the room on how we can make improvements on this extraordinarily important matter. We face enormous challenges of scientific prediction. As London addresses these issues, we should be certain to share best practice with other countries—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Upland Farming

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for raising a subject of such importance, and indeed for his kind words. It is a very great privilege to have my first opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box dealing with a subject of such importance. I apologise in advance for the fact that I am not accustomed to doing so. I am normally barracking Front Benchers from the Back Benches, and it is rather difficult to adjust to facing forward.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, upland farmers are the most powerful symbol of our most fundamental values. Their presence is a living reminder of the formation of the British landscape, with the relationship between humans and soils reflected in the very shape of our fell sides. The uplands are the creation of those farmers. As he said, it is their work that we are celebrating and from which we are benefiting, whether through tourism, ecology, poetry or painting. We see their legacy in the shape of every field and the angle of every dry stone wall. It is their children who support our schools, and it is they who support our rural roads and shops. The lifeblood of our rural communities depends on the upland farmer, and that is as true of Exmoor and my hon. Friend’s constituency as it is of Cumbria, the North Yorkshire moors, Northumbria, Dartmoor, the Yorkshire dales and the whole Pennine ridge.

Upland farmers face three unique challenges. As my hon. Friend said, those are, first, economics and incomes; secondly, bureaucracy; and, thirdly, environmental management. I would like to respond briefly to each of those in turn. First, I can absolutely reassure him that the Government understand the serious issues around farm incomes. The average income for upland farmers is about £23,900, but many farmers in our constituencies operate on incomes that are considerably lower. In my constituency, there are upland farmers on incomes below £16,000 a year.

We looked specifically at the data for my hon. Friend’s constituency and for Exmoor, and we found that the number of commercial farm holdings fell from 603 in 2009 to 510 in 2013. Now, there will be many reasons for that, some of which are to do with economies of scale, and some of which are to do with changes in agriculture, but I feel, and I think he will feel, that that is 100 families whose history, heritage, knowledge of the landscape and investment in the soil have been lost forever.

That is why I am proud that the Government have introduced some serious reforms to the way the basic payment scheme operates. For example, from 2015, we are equalising the payments for lowland areas and severely disadvantaged areas. The direct payment rate on moorland has almost doubled. That sounds like normal Government jargon, but it is not—it makes an enormous difference. Effectively, it means that lowland farms will lose a certain amount, but it will be a relatively small amount compared with the benefit for upland farmers. DEFRA estimates that the SDA rate will increase from about €200 to €245 per hectare, and the moorland rate will nearly double, from €35 to nearly €70.

That should make a significant difference to upland incomes, but the Department needs to be careful to study this. We must be sure that we look at incomes in the round. We are looking not just at the basic payment scheme, but at all the other forms of support and environmental incentive provided to these farmers. More needs to be done, and we must monitor the impact of the changes to be sure that they remain flexible and that we are attentive to any problems.

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

Can the Minister answer a question asked of me time and again by my farming constituents in north Northumberland, many of whom are upland farmers? How would the Government support our farmers if the nation votes to leave the European Union in 2017? That is a real concern, and there is a fear that there is no understanding in DEFRA of how the issue might be dealt with.

[Rory Stewart]

It is a great privilege to take a question from my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on her maiden speech. As the representative of Berwick, she represents the epitome of the middleland—that wonderful junction between England and Scotland—and the upland farmers right the way along to the Kielder forest. It is vital that, whatever happens in the vote on the European Union, the Conservative party—indeed, all parties in this House, I hope—and this country continue to provide deep support for farmers. We will be able to do that only if we take some of the arguments my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset made and bring the public along with us. It would be dangerous, whether we remain in the European Union or leave it, if we ended up vesting our responsibility in the EU. We must take responsibility ourselves; we must say we believe in the support farmers currently get from Europe, and, whatever happens in the vote, we must continue to provide it, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned and that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) raised in her question.

The second issue my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset raised concerned complex structures and bureaucracy, and I congratulate him on a most astonishing range of acronyms. It was a fantastic list of what we are all struggling with day by day. I am glad, however, that DEFRA has taken a number of steps to try to recognise how frustrating that bureaucracy can be. We hope that the new countryside stewardship scheme, which he mocked in his inimitable style, will provide a simpler, more robust method of delivering what we all want. We can see this, for example, in one issue that he raised: under-grazing and over-grazing. The countryside stewardship scheme is much more flexible at addressing that exact issue.

The third issue my hon. Friend raised—I am going to face the House rather than Mr Speaker; I apologise, I am learning my role here at the Dispatch Box—relates to the unintended environmental consequences of what we are doing. He used a very good example: the contrast between what is happening in Exmoor and what is happening in the North Yorkshire moors. He pointed out that differential growing rates mean the stopping of burning on Exmoor leads to much more growth of foliage and, in fact, damage to the environment. He is following a very distinguished tradition. That was pointed out by Charles Darwin in his seminal work, “The Origin of Species”. He stated that removing grazing and allowing grass to grow actually reduces the number of species on a given area of land. In other words, allowing that kind of understocking and not having burning in place may result not just in damage to farm incomes, but environmental damage.

That is why Natural England has, I am very glad to say, introduced flexibility around burning regimes. It has proposed allowing larger burn areas and more frequent burn rotations than would be found on sporting estates in the northern uplands. That will of course be key to farmers who do not want to be looking at a fell side that they will see as returning to wilderness and scrub, but it will also be vital for species such as the heath fritillary. I challenge my hon. Friend, if that is not happening on the ground, to please come back to us so we can look at it again, but Natural England has introduced those changes.

I would like to conclude by summarising some of the essential steps that I believe we now require to ensure that we have sustainable upland farming and sustainable upland communities.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) referred to rural isolation. I hoped the Minister would try to address that issue and where we are on income brackets, so that those who feel isolated can be reassured that there is a future for them in the uplands.

[Rory Stewart]

Rural isolation is a serious issue. Upland areas are, almost by definition, the most sparsely populated areas in Britain. People are trapped by barriers of distance. Traditionally, those are barriers of communication and barriers of roads, but increasingly they are barriers of technology, such as lack of access to superfast broadband. In addition, if one looks at an individual upland farm, one will find that the number of people working on that farm has decreased dramatically in the past 60 years. Farms that might once have employed two or three people no longer do so. Increasingly, that means that life in the uplands, if connected to the fact that the number of farms is falling because farms are getting larger, is increasingly lonely. As we know, an auction mart can provide an important way for farmers to meet each other.

That is not to say that we should be portraying upland farmers as victims. They are, as we all know, incredibly resilient and confident individuals who have chosen the life they love deeply and of which we are deeply proud. However, we need to be serious about the fact that isolated lives can be challenging: challenging for education and healthcare for farmers and their children, and challenging in terms of being able to diversify. We talk a great deal about getting people online, but if there is no broadband connection on one’s farm it is pretty difficult to diversify.

All these issues about isolation are important reasons why keeping incomes up through agri-environmental schemes is necessary. However, finding other kinds of infrastructure investment that we can put in place, whether it is for better roads or better broadband, will also be vital to the long-term health of those communities and the long-term life of the whole area, including those very species we want to protect. The whole idea of the countryside stewardship scheme is predicated, of course, on the existence of those countryside stewards, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, in this case the countryside stewards are the upland farmers themselves.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his contribution today; he has always made good contributions from the Back Benches and is now doing a fantastic job at the Dispatch Box. He mentioned the importance of broadband. I was on Hall’s Fell Ridge on Blencathra this weekend, looking down over his constituency, and I thought about the similarities between the upland farmers there and some of the upland farmers in my Macclesfield constituency, which is on the other side of the Peak district. Does he agree that it is vital to get these roll-out plans clearer, so that farmers can plan ahead to see whether they will be in the roll-out plan for the 99 percentile, or if they are not in that plan to have options to roll out into community-based solutions, which he knows quite a lot about from his own experience?

[Rory Stewart]

It is great to take a question from my hon. Friend. He is, of course, not just a fantastic local constituency MP but somebody who knows a great deal about this specific subject and has championed the outdoor industries, the uplands and the connection between the two, so he knows a great deal about diversification.

The point my hon. Friend made, which in grisly jargon terms we could call a point about transparency, is absolutely central. It is very important that rural communities know when they will get broadband and what kind of broadband they can get, so that they can make the relevant plans. There may be areas where broadband delivery may be more difficult, in which case people need to look at private sector providers or focus on the possibility of satellite or point-to-point wireless connections.

I will conclude my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset. I say a very strong thanks to him for raising an issue that matters so much; in fact, this rather crowded House in the middle of an Adjournment debate is a testament to how much this issue matters to so many of us here.

We need to have a much more open conversation, and we need to recognise that one size does not fit all. That means that we need to learn from all parts of this House and from all hon. Members about what is working and what is not working in their constituencies. We need to be better at being challenged on issues such as burning on Dartmoor.

Natural England should be empowered to be much more flexible. We do not need a 300-mile screwdriver operating from here in Westminster to tell people what to do; such a situation should be resolved between a Natural England official and the farmer on the ground in Dartmoor. We ourselves must assess and reassess relentlessly the regulatory methods that we are putting in place; we have to free farmers to farm.

The contribution of my hon. Friend is vital in the process of championing the uplands. I am really pleased that this debate is one of the earliest Adjournment debates of this Parliament. His contribution is also vital in holding people such as me to task, to ensure that we listen, learn and act.

I will finish by speaking personally and saying that I find almost nothing in our landscape as precious or as moving as the contribution of upland farmers over countless generations. We owe it to our ancestors and our descendants, to our landscape and to our rural communities, to give upland farmers the support they require to do their essential work. I pay tribute to the work done by many, many people in this Chamber over the years in supporting upland farmers, but this evening I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Upland Sheep Farmers

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Glyn Davies]

Again, I agree with that intervention and I feel certain that the agriculture departments in the three devolved countries and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be doing that very thing. I certainly hope so; perhaps the Minister will address that point in his response.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is very generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that we need to put this issue in the much broader context of the very difficult time that sheep farmers are having in general? Across the Bailey and Bewcastle valleys in my constituency, there have been two years of horror with poached soil, fluke and the snow coming at the end of that. If we are to retain the fabric of small farms, which I think we would all like to do, we really need to think over the next two to three years of what kind of measures can be put in place—apart from the particular issue of snow—to preserve small farming for the future.

[Glyn Davies]

That is a very good point. Earlier I mentioned the description by the Prince’s Trust of the circumstances that we were experiencing before the snowfall. A number of elements, connected with the weather, the Schmallenberg disease and other issues, had combined to put the sheep in a very difficult position. The businesses of the farmers who were hit by the huge snowfall, however, have been put under real threat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The answer is that we can, and I shall move on to that in moment. This is one area in which we do not have a difficulty in that respect, as I shall explain later.

[Rory Stewart]

Derogations have been important, not just for livestock disposal, but for the use of red diesel and the working time directive, and farmers in Cumbria and across the country have been grateful for the flexibility shown by the Government in all those derogations.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and perhaps this is an opportune time for me to set out some of the things we have done. I will not pretend that any of them provide the complete answer, but I hope that they have been of help. As he said, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has, as we have done previously, allowed farmers to use red diesel in their tractors to help grit and clear snow from public roads. That has been important in getting access to some areas. Without that derogation, I think it would be impossible to reach some isolated communities.

Importantly, we have also secured a temporary relaxation of the enforcement of the European Union drivers’ working hours, in order to ensure that essential supplies of animal feed deliveries have been able to get through. That is crucial for farmers who did not expect their sheep to need to be fed—that is despite the palatability or otherwise, and I entirely understand the point about how difficult it is to persuade a mountain sheep to suddenly switch to sheep nuts, but better that than the alternative, and it is important that those feed supplies get through.

We have also worked closely with the National Fallen Stock Company to arrange the best possible terms for the collection of dead animals. One of the most striking things is that every farmer has casualty animals and needs to call somebody to take away the carcases. Some have skips full of 50, 60 or 70 dead animals and the cost of disposing of them individually would have mounted up and become unsupportable. It is important, therefore, that the cheapest possible bulk terms were negotiated at an early stage with the NFSC.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others mentioned the rules for the burning or burial of livestock on farms. The rules for the disposal of carcasses are governed by the European Union’s Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which make it illegal, normally, to dispose of a carcass on-farm. However, a specific derogation in those regulations that the UK has authorised and continues to authorise allows for the on-farm disposal of carcasses if the conditions are too difficult to get them to a collection vehicle. That applies in a number of circumstances. I reminded local authorities, who can prosecute if they believe that there has been an infringement of those regulations, that they have the capacity to take into account the individual circumstances under the derogation, and that they should apply maximum flexibility in the affected areas. I am very happy that they were able to do that. I understand that precisely that provision was also used in Wales in order to provide for the local authorities there. The local authorities had the power to do so; we simply reminded them that they had that power, because it was important.

That has been helpful for some farmers, but not for all. What struck me in Cumbria was that on some high fell farms there was no way that an animal could be buried on that sort of terrain. I can perfectly well understand the strength of feeling against pyres being built and operated on the farms, but in a way it surprised me by its intensity. It is clear that farmers did not want to be reminded of very difficult times not so long ago, when the countryside was littered with funeral pyres of dead animals. They did not want that—they wanted those dead animals off the farm. That very much influenced my view of what we should do next.

To complete the initial variations that we made, Natural England has at our request temporarily lifted some of the land management requirements that normally apply to environmental stewardship agreements, which gives farmers a bit more flexibility to deal with the impact of the recent extreme weather.

Last Thursday I made a statement to the House about the effects of the severe weather. It confirmed the latest move that we have applied in England in our programme of support for English farmers. We have made up to £250,000 available to reimburse farmers for the cost of removing sheep killed in the snow. The funds will go towards the very specific problem of removing animals that have died on-farm as a direct result of the March snowfall. I have seen some comment and some suggestion that that is not enough. It is enough, according to our best information from the National Farmers Union—the representatives of the farmers. We have relied on the information that they have given us in order to meet the immediate needs.

Rural Communities

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I join everyone in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this important debate. The enormous number of people here is testimony to the importance of the subject.

Speaking on behalf of Cumbria, I want to say that we need to recognise, when we talk about Government support for rural areas, that there is already significant Government support for them. We cannot start the debate pretending that rural areas are somehow entirely neglected or forgotten. It is correct that there should be Government support for them, but we should recognise that in per capita terms—and of course, it is driven by our need—Government support can be considerable. In our part of Cumbria, for example, we run two district hospitals for a population of 300,000 people. We have the smallest high school and the smallest sixth form in England. That means that the per capita costs of running those services are high. That is a form of cross-subsidy from other parts of the country.

Therefore, we should not over-push the argument. We should not stand up again and again in the House of Commons and present ourselves as victims. To do so is dangerous. If we present ourselves as victims and demand more and more transfer payments, and start to take on board the arguments about productivity and the connection between rural areas and the City of London, for example, we will create unpleasant tensions. We will end up with people in London saying “Why should we subsidise rural areas?” We do not want to get into that conversation. We will, in short, find that we are having the same conversation that we are now having with Scotland, which has become poisoned by the question of how much money is moving north of the border, and how much is moving south.

Nor should rural areas try to imitate cities. One of the most dangerous things that we have been doing in Cumbria has been to pursue industrialisation policies that are entirely unsuitable for rural areas. Of course it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) said, that we need to be sure that the economy flourishes in rural areas. However, that does not mean going into an area such as Penrith and The Border, where currently we have close to full employment, and building businesses for which we have no workers, shipping them in from other parts of the country, then saying we have a housing shortage and building another 400 houses, and then saying we do not have jobs for the people in those 400 houses, and building more businesses. That may be convenient for district councils that could generate money from that kind of operation, but it is not what is demanded by our area, our population, or our economy.

Instead, we need to look at the country as a single complementary unit—complementary in the sense that city and rural needs are different, but also in the sense that we are one community, one country and one nation. We are not about transfer payments. We cannot allow people in London to see themselves as some city state that is paying for the rest of the country. We must understand that our contribution is valuable.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

I suspect that many people in London would, however, be surprised to find out that in rural areas such as mine people cannot get a school bus. I am thinking specifically of the 7.55 am bus from Sutton in Ashfield to Tibshelf, which has been removed, throwing mums’ lives into chaos. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that getting a school bus is not just desirable but essential?

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point.

With the caveat that we do not want to present ourselves as victims, it is essential to demand the basic services that other people in the country take for granted. Those could be buses, or access to hospitals or schools.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend is happy with the funding of education in Cumbria. As a Leicestershire MP I am not happy with the funding settlement for Leicestershire, which is the lowest-funded county, per capita, in the whole of Great Britain. We are in the bizarre situation, with no indication of any movement by the Government to repair the damage, in which the education of every pupil in the city of Leicester is valued at a stunning £800 a year more than that of every pupil in Leicestershire. That is untenable and cannot be perpetuated. To say that is not to plead poverty: there is a clear disparity between the education funding for rural areas such as Leicestershire and that for cities.

[Rory Stewart]

I am certainly not going to stand up in the House of Commons and say that I am happy with Government funding for education in Cumbria. There is not a single person in this Chamber who would say that they feel happy with the funding for their local area, but we need to strike a balance that is sustainable for the nation. There are two things that we need to do. Instead of focusing on money we should consider what the Government can provide—above all, I am thinking about infrastructure and getting the broadband in the ground and sufficient mobile coverage—and we must understand that Government could provide a lot more for rural areas if they gave space to rural communities to fill in the gaps. In our case, for example, the first responders enormously help the ambulance service, but they are not allowed to deal with children, which takes out a whole chunk of the population who could be served by volunteers within our communities.

In relation to our air ambulance service, the Government could do an enormous amount by exempting VAT on fuel. However, in relation to broadband, which is the most exciting area of all, it is about assigning responsibility. It is about the Government saying to communities, “This is what you ought to do and this is what the Government will not do.”

We should see rural communities not as victims but as the vanguard of Britain; as miraculous places that produce things that other parts of the country do not. In Cumbria, we have a magic alchemy that turns wet grass into productive protein, which we can sell around the world. If we get the broadband right, small and medium-sized enterprises from rural communities can challenge the rest of the world, but that involves education, focus and confidence. Importantly, we can provide an image for the 21st century on how to live in rural areas, and we no longer need to present ourselves as victims.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the idea that proper debate in the House should be required on triggering very detailed financial amendments? Given the lack of attendance in the broader debate about this Bill, is it realistic to expect proper parliamentary scrutiny of something so minor?

[Gavin Shuker]

I am grateful for that point from the hon. Gentleman who has joined us in the debate. I ask him to hear me out regarding this measure. I am sure he has read the amendment and understands that it refers to the process for statutory instruments under which Members who had a particular interest in the matter would be able to go and make representations. We use that system quite commonly across the House and I feel that such additional parliamentary scrutiny would be appropriate for projects such as those we are discussing, which could involve costs of up to £4.2 billion and a long period of tunnelling works and the like, let alone for other projects that we do not currently know about.

As Members of Parliament we scrutinise, debate and legislate, and we are elected to do so. By putting the power to decide whether public money should be risked on large water infrastructure projects solely in the hands of the Secretary of State, we lose that thorough process, which is the most accessible way for Members to engage in legislation here in Parliament. We will see how much interest the Thames tunnel has attracted in the Chamber today as part of the Bill. The debate so far has allowed MPs who represent constituencies that will be affected by the plans to come forward and express the views of their constituents, but it is limited. The debate has also allowed those with experience and expertise in the field from both sides of the House to feed in their knowledge and advice.

However, the clause in its current form concerns us because it means that from here on we risk writing blank cheques for the Secretary of State and her successors when it comes to large water infrastructure projects. The clause will see the decision-making process remain in the Secretary of State’s office—decisions which might lack awareness of how enormous these infrastructure plans are and how they will affect people’s homes and lifestyles.

Let us compare the Bill with other Bills that will be introduced in this Parliament before 2015. We know that a hybrid Bill process will be used in some cases. This is not a hybrid Bill, so it is important that we get the groundwork right in relation to the decision-making process on the Thames tunnel and other infrastructure.

Our amendment requests that such proposals come to the House for debate and allow Members to contribute their knowledge and experience. Accountability and scrutiny are needed if infrastructure plans are to reshape constituencies that Members are elected to represent. It is only right for their input to be considered. Amendment 2 will improve the Bill in that way.

As an aside, although it is essential to our decision whether to move the amendment, I noted on Second Reading in the discussion of the decision-making process on the Thames tunnel that reference was made to the policy intent in the Government’s document, “Major infrastructure planning reform: Work plan” of December 2010, which states:

“Following Royal Assent of the Localism Bill major infrastructure applications will return to ministers for decision as follows: . . . the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will jointly determine water supply and waste water applications.”

I have checked and DEFRA has confirmed that the joint decision-making process is undertaken by administrative means, not statutory means. In other words, although the Localism Act 2011 amended the planning legislation to give Ministers the final decision-making responsibility for major infrastructure, it did not lay down a legal duty imposing the policy intent. So DEFRA will lead on waste water and DCLG will handle planning, including the report from the planning inspectorate, but the Departments have not yet, as I understand it—I look to the Minister to clarify this—decided how Ministers will act jointly in the final decision. That falls short of a legal duty to make joint decisions that place a legal responsibility on both Secretaries of State. It could result in messy horse-trading between the two Departments. If the Minister clarified the exact process, that would be helpful. It may not address our particular concern that proper parliamentary scrutiny is applied to the decision through the statutory instrument process, but it will help us decide whether to press the amendment.

The Minister said earlier that he would share the discussions that he has had with his officials and, as I understood it, with Thames Water, to reassure us about the cost and the process for implementing the tunnel. We have another debate on Monday to approve the guidance on waste water. If not during this debate or the one on Monday, when will he share the discussions that he has had, which he sought to use to reassure Members that the process would be properly managed?

Amendment 3 will sharpen the mind of anyone proposing major infrastructure works by obliging them to consider the requirement to make apprenticeship programmes a key part of that work. Thames Water estimates that the Thames tunnel project will directly create more than 4,000 jobs in the construction sector. The majority will be employed through contractors. Of course, the true number is likely to be higher, given the secondary employment effect. A partnership is emerging with Crossrail’s tunnelling and underground construction academy, which is currently training and placing about 70 apprentices each year. Last week the Minister gave an assurance at the Dispatch Box that the Thames tunnel project will specify in its contracts the number of apprentices who will be employed by contractors.

In amendment 3 we commend that approach, not just for the Thames tunnel project but for future projects. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament on her proposals to encourage level 5 and 6 training programmes—for those Members not fully versed in those programmes, they are equivalent to foundation and bachelor degree qualifications. These major works can take a decade or more to complete, which means that there is ample time to bring a generation of young people into the trades, if the political will is there to require it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point explicitly and brilliantly. If the lessons of the past 20 years on major infrastructure projects where we have required special social benefits are to be learnt, monitoring is absolutely essential. That is why I think that our amendment’s approach is very sensible. It would require the Secretary of State to bring forward her plan, and an agreement with the infrastructure provider, so that it could be approved by this House. The additional level of scrutiny given would not just be an assurance in the contracts; there would be proper parliamentary accountability to ensure that the benefits, for Londoners in this case, are spread across the capital and give young Londoners a fair start.

We know that the Thames tunnel will be a huge infrastructure project, and we have all seen the bad news on youth unemployment today, so we are calling on the Government to ensure that young Londoners get a fair share of the 4,000 jobs the tunnel will deliver. In short, this is a real opportunity to help guarantee apprenticeships and high-level skills. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept both amendments, which would improve the Bill for Londoners now and for all households in the years to come.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has made a powerful case for apprentices and for better scrutiny of financial mechanisms. I stand, with enormous modesty, not as someone representing the Thames, but as someone representing a large body of water in Cumbria. However, my disagreement with the amendments, and I suspect my party’s disagreement, is based on profound Tory principles. It is a disagreement not on the nature of scrutiny or the importance of apprenticeships, but on the basis of law, the way statutes should be created, the way administration should be driven through and the importance of the issue. We begin in agreement: apprenticeships are important, as is scrutiny. But Parliament is not the way to do this.

This is an elegant and unencumbered piece of legislation. What we have seen in infrastructure investment over the past 50 years is a complete misunderstanding in this country about the importance of Parliament in infrastructure and where Parliament should not be involved. We have been a catastrophe— not just the Labour Government, but the previous Conservative Government—when it comes to making the right infrastructure investments for this country. Why? It is because, unlike Denmark and Germany, we have never developed a proper attitude towards infrastructure or investment. We have never developed a national investment bank. We continue to believe that highly technical matters, such as those relating to the deployment of water or the details of the financing of infrastructure, can be resolved by Parliament, rather than the kinds of specialists in the World Bank who deliver these projects effectively around the world. We see that in water and, just as powerfully, in broadband.

If the Government are pushing ahead with this legislation, and if we are pushing back against the Opposition, it is because the failings over the past 13 years in delivering infrastructure are reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for Luton South. There are better ways of looking at the financing; there are better ways of looking at apprenticeships.

We have in place flexible apprenticeship mechanisms that are currently delivering more than 100,000 apprentices. Encumbering this legislation or, indeed, any future infrastructure legislation with that degree of detail would not only, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) pointed out, prove generally ineffective, as it has in the past owing to a lack of monitoring, but take away from civil servants—which is where it should lie—the real responsibility and accountability for delivering good, imaginative infrastructure projects, well financed and with apprentices in place.

Given the importance of this issue, given that water matters so much to us, given that the drop in public sector demand means that we should make more infrastructure investment, given that we need to be much more creative about how we bring financial mechanisms to bear, given that it is so cheap at the moment to borrow money, and given that it should be possible to make not just this but many more profitable investments on the basis of public sector insurance or financing, I beg the hon. Member for Luton South to withdraw the amendment. It would tie the hands of the Government at a very important moment, when we need exactly this kind of infrastructure and exactly this kind of investment in water not just for apprentices but for economic growth.

The way to proceed is with a serious, responsible approach to infrastructure investment, which will not be delivered through the kind of statutory commitments that the hon. Gentleman proposes.

[Miss McIntosh]

I shall limit my remarks and take a slightly different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), because I believe that there is some merit in parliamentary scrutiny and that, often, we have better laws as a result. Given that there is all-party and, indeed, consumer support for what the measure and, in particular clause 2(6), is trying to achieve, I am sure that in moving amendment 2 the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) is not seeking to delay matters through parliamentary scrutiny.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider this approach, however, which I have shared with the Leader of the House? When we have—as was mentioned in the debate about the first group of amendments—parliamentary scrutiny of draft orders under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, for example, is it not unsatisfactory that all we are required to do is to vote for or against the statutory instrument? Would there not be some merit in being able to amend it?

I have chaired and served on Statutory Instrument Committees, as all of us have been privileged to do from time to time—although I hope that the Whips do not take that as a bid to serve on any in the future. As a humble Back Bencher, however, I believe—and this is where I part company with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—that if we are going to have scrutiny we should be able to amend statutory instruments. I find it unsatisfactory that we may have an amendable motion but not the power to amend a statutory instrument. I just plant that thought in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

I am sympathetic to the concerns of the hon. Member for Luton South about jobs and growth, as are all hon. Members. Jobs and growth are central to the Government’s agenda. I agree that large projects such as the Thames tunnel have a significant role to play. As I explained on Second Reading, Thames Water estimates that the project will directly employ about 4,200 people in construction and related sectors. I understand that Thames Water has 40 apprentices in training, and that future intakes are planned to maintain that number. Thames Water’s tunnel team actively support Crossrail’s Tunnelling and Underground Construction academy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which is currently training and gaining employment for 70 apprentices a year. The Thames tunnel project is also committed to following the Crossrail model of specifying in its contracts the number of apprentices who will be employed in the contractors’ work force. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he needs.

[Rory Stewart]

Does my hon. Friend accept, as a general philosophical principle, that one should not micro-manage the detail of a Bill to the extent that is called for in the amendments, because one would end up with endless and voluminous legislation? Does he agree that the issues of apprenticeships and financing are better left to the contracting authorities and to the administration of civil servants, and that if too much of this micro-managing happens on sectoral issues and specific projects, Parliament will be mired in complexity?

[Richard Benyon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be wrong to put in the Bill requirements that might or might not suit today’s world, but that would be wrong for the future. The Government, in negotiations with private sector companies and through the planning process, are involved at many levels in the development of such contracts. We can impose our desires and our will. The companies and the Government can be held to account if they fail on these matters. I believe that to prescribe to such a level of detail would be wrong.

Thames Water is holding the launch for a jobs and skills report in the House on 20 March, to which MPs are invited. Its jobs and skills forum will promote the work that it is carrying out in this area. Thames Water will also look to gain from the experiences of other large-scale infrastructure projects. It is right for the Government to support and encourage Thames Water in those efforts.

Apprenticeships are central to ensuring that our work force are equipped to help build economic growth. There are huge opportunities in the project, if we can embrace them, for Londoners who are seeking work and training to be involved in a really high-profile scheme for a number of years. They can then take the benefits into other sectors and industries. However, we do not feel the need for further legislation to provide that encouragement. Nor is it necessary or appropriate to require the terms and conditions involved to be included in a statutory instrument. For that reason, I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. She has spoken eloquently and at length about the flood insurance deserts that have resulted from the chilling effect of the cuts. One of the key recommendations of the Pitt review, which followed the 2007 floods and affected my constituency of Wakefield, was that flood defence spending should rise by more than inflation every year. With inflation at 5%, that would mean an increase of more than 5% this year.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

This is not a party political question. The Scots argue strongly that one of the best ways to deal with flooding is not to allow construction on flood plains. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that one of the real errors of the past 15 years has been our construction policy, rather than the amount of money put into flood defences?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I did not hear him thank us for the flood defences that were put in place in Cumbria following the terrible floods there.

[Rory Stewart]

Thank you.

[Mary Creagh]

It was our pleasure. I know that Carlisle also suffered terribly. We cannot stop all development. The Thames Gateway development is happening on areas that are also potentially flood plains, but we must ensure that there is a joined-up strategy across Government and that the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Treasury and the Home Office look at the real costs of flooding. At the moment insurers pay out, but it is not in their interests to stop flood events, because ultimately it is the reinsurers who pay the costs. We need to drill down and get a true account from across Government of the costs of flood events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I shall certainly look at that situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is vital that we take action to clean up rivers. We have put £92 million more into the budget to try to improve the quality of the water in our rivers. Anybody who is polluting should be penalised, and that is what the Environment Agency is for.

[Rory Stewart]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

I will give way once more before making some progress.

[Rory Stewart]

In fact, we have not experienced capital cuts in Cumbria; rather, the Environment Agency is being considerably more flexible than it was six or nine months ago, responding to communities and clearing out gravel. The progress is good under the current Government; I would like to put that on the record.

[Richard Benyon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The new partnership scheme will end the problem of communities failing, year after year, to get just above the line needed for their schemes to go ahead. There will now be clarity in the system, so that people can see exactly where they are on the scale and what needs to be geared up, by whatever means, for their scheme to get above the line.

May I express my admiration, in a perverse way, for the nerve of the hon. Member for Wakefield for mentioning the word “broadband” in the motion and in her speech? That is masterful chutzpah. I could ridicule her for it, but part of me secretly admires it from somebody in a party that did so little in government. This country was at the bottom of every conceivable league table, and the previous Government had a scheme that involved raising huge amounts of money from some kind of telephone tax that nobody thought would work. This Government have made the issue an absolute priority.

The hon. Lady is right to make broadband an issue in a green debate. Broadband allows people to work and learn from home, which reduces congestion. The Government also believe that this is a social inclusion issue, however. Broadband will assist people who are old, ill, mentally ill, out of work or on a low income, particularly those who live in remote communities, out of all proportion to any other factor in their lives. It is therefore absolutely right to include it in this debate, and I am very happy to talk about the investment that we are making, including the £530 million that is being spent through Broadband Delivery UK and the £20 million that has been geared up from DEFRA’s funds for the hard-to-reach in our most rural communities, as well as the £150 million recently announced by the Chancellor to assist the roll-out of mobile 4G access, which can provide coverage for broadband on mobile phone networks. That is also very good news.

The hon. Lady also made some interesting points about the five-point plan for growth and jobs, but it would simply add to the scale of debt. How can we deal with the debt problem by adding to it? Nothing should add to our debt. The shadow Chancellor’s five-point plan would not be a way of gearing up jobs and growth in the green economy or in any other. As in so many areas, Labour Members have absolutely no credibility when they talk about the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I am a little troubled by the idea that the Opposition are presenting their policies to be quite so idyllic. My experience as a Cumbrian MP is that when one looks at a village such as Bampton in my constituency, what one sees is neglect. The past 10 years have seen, if I look to the left, that we suddenly have inedible grass on our hillside because the stocking levels have become too low. We have cows dying unnecessarily of bovine TB. We have an absence of affordable housing in our villages because of rigid planning regulations, and we have worse mobile coverage in Cumbria than in Kabul and extremely ineffective broadband coverage.

In every single respect, the problem—this goes to the heart of the motion—has not been a lack of cash. The problem with the policies pursued has been that they have been too centralised in London, too inflexible and too black and white, and they have failed correctly to engage with communities and businesses.

[Mary Creagh]

I saw an interesting article a couple of weeks ago in Farmers Guardian or Farmers Weekly, which I read assiduously, about bovine TB. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that bovine TB in his area is not endemic in the badger population, and that it has come from the movement and transmission of cattle?

[Rory Stewart]

I shall take up that point, as it illustrates the four aspects that I identified. What we need and what the Government are providing is more courage, which goes to bovine TB, more work with communities, more ability to confront vested interests and more creativity.

On courage with respect to bovine TB, what is the fundamental problem with bovine TB in Cumbria? It is not badgers, as the hon. Lady says. It is that for 13 years the previous Government were not prepared to talk honestly to farmers about the fact that the TB getting into our herds is coming from cattle movement. The answer should come from a better attitude towards movement and linked holdings, and a better attitude towards post-movement testing. Scotland has shown the example. We should have had the courage in areas such as Cumbria, which are still safe and where TB is not endemic, to have effectively moved that border south.

That leads to the second element—working with communities. Again, the solution to the lack of affordable housing in our area, the solution to planning in our area, and the solution to renewable energy, particularly hydro-generation, lies in working much more flexibly with communities. We have just built 22 affordable homes in a rural area by allowing the community of Crosby Ravensworth to do its own planning. We are doing barn conversions up and down the east side of Cumbria by listening to communities who want houses for farmers’ children and have been unable to provide them because of rigid centralised planning regulations.

There has been a failure to confront vested interests—a failure to confront supermarkets over contracts, a failure to confront supermarkets over planning, and sometimes a failure to confront certain elements and lobbies within the farming interests, which connects to the issue of bovine TB. The solution is not only to engage with communities and not only to be more courageous, but to be more creative, which brings us to broadband and mobile telephone coverage.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

There is another problem—the direct and, I suggest, deliberate skewing of Government funding to urban areas in the name of deprivation, and away from rural areas. The average grant per head in rural areas is 50% less than in urban areas at the end of 10 years of Labour, average incomes are lower and the average council tax is 100% higher. People are poorer, they pay more and get less, and that needs to be put right.

[Rory Stewart]

I agree, but to continue to develop the point, it is not simply a matter of cash. The point is creativity. On broadband, the problem with the Cornish project implemented by the previous Government with enormous generosity was its inflexibility—£100 million spent on a region with half the surface area of Cumbria. Were we to try to pursue broadband on that basis, we would spend £42 billion in this country, instead of which, by using communities that are prepared to dig their own trenches and to waive wayleaves, and by pushing commercial providers to innovate in their technical delivery, whether it is cellular delivery, a point-to-point microwave link or a fibre optic cable, means that in Cumbria, with any luck, and touching wood, we should be able to achieve results at least as good as those in Cornwall for about a quarter of the price.

The same is true of mobile coverage. The Ofcom target of 95%, which was set under the previous Government, was not ambitious enough and the costs to rural communities were extreme. By pushing up the coverage obligation, providing £150 million—not a very large amount—for building more masts and, most importantly, confronting the producer interest, meaning the mobile phone companies, which used to be their stock in trade, and compelling them to provide the coverage that they are reluctant to provide outside urban areas, we should now be able to achieve coverage of 98% to 99%.

The economic benefit of all that to rural areas would be immense. There would be a GDP benefit to small businesses and health and education benefits for remote rural areas. All the health, prosperity and vigour that that would bring those communities would allow the delivery of exactly the environmental projects that the Opposition hold so dear. Prosperous and vibrant rural communities will allow farmers, who are often the people in whom we vest responsibility for the environmental projects, to deliver them.

In conclusion, the fundamental mistake in the Opposition’s motion is not their objectives or what they feel ought to be done, but the methods they propose. I am afraid that those methods are dependent on a large deployment of cash, which is what I call the Cornwall approach. Instead, I believe that this Government have brought, as I am proud to see in rural Cumbria, the right focus on communities, the right creativity and the right ability to confront and to show courage, which hopefully means that the next time I look out of my window in my constituency, when I return there tomorrow, I will see affordable housing being built, broadband going into the ground, mobile coverage emerging, healthier cows and a more prosperous farming community that can support all the environmental targets we hold dear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George]

Absolutely, and I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It takes me on to another point that I wish to make, in response to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place. He was bemoaning the lack of progress on the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which has cross-party support.

I have to declare an interest, as for the past five years I have chaired the grocery market action group. I have been urging and seeking cross-party support for that Bill. When I started out I was entirely on my own, but I am pleased to say that both the previous Labour Government, latterly, and the Conservatives just before the general election came on board and recognised the importance of ensuring that we get fair dealing in the grocery supply chain. Although that is not directly relevant to our debate on the environment today, it is directly relevant to other matters that Members have raised, including recycling. On that issue and others, we should form cross-party support.

In spite of the very limited time that we have, I cannot allow this moment to go by without responding to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), since he mentioned the great nation of Cornwall and the investment strategy for broadband. It has to be said that there are more than 500,000 people in Cornwall, and its population may not be as dispersed as that of Cumbria. He may well be right that we will be paying Rolls-Royce prices for something that we could be getting a little cheaper, but if the policy is advanced in one rural area, lessons can be learned that will benefit other areas later.

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very fair point, and it is absolutely right that Cornwall got a good deal at the time when it got it. However, the real lesson of that is that we need flexibility and pilots, with one county at a time learning the lessons so that we can drive down the costs and force suppliers to do more and more as they move from Cumbria to Northumbria and around the country. What I said was not intended as a criticism of Cornwall.

[Andrew George]

No, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with me on the matter. Certainly it is not possible to have fibre-optic cable to a cabinet within yards of every home in dispersed rural areas, so we need to ensure that we have an investment profile that allows the use of satellite broadband in certain circumstances. We are learning lessons from the Cornish example, and we have had the benefit of European convergence funding to take the matter forward.

I wish to touch briefly on three more matters—waste, green growth and sustainable development. The Government have rightly put in place a waste review. It is an iterative process that is progressing—perhaps too slowly, but it is certainly progressing. It provides a framework for those who want to engage in the process, as I encourage Members of all parties to do, to make constructive proposals to enhance the Government’s intention to achieve a zero-waste economy. That means sending zero to landfill.

Bovine TB

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

Yes, I can give that assurance, and the industry, too, will provide many examples of the human angle in the devastation suffered. I invite those who do not support the approach we are taking to think what the alternative is, in the absence of a viable vaccine at this point in time, to help to combat a disease that has devastated so many lives and so much of the countryside.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the serious focus that she is showing on this issue. However, in Cumbria, which has been largely TB-free, we are now under threat. Recent incidents have arisen from dealers moving infected cattle from infected areas into Cumbria. May I urge the Secretary of State please to look at what we can do to prevent that from occurring in the future and, in the meantime, to encourage auction houses to let farmers know before they buy cattle whether they have been in an infected one to two-year testing zone in the previous six months?

[Mrs Spelman]

This is a balanced package of measures for the control and eradication of TB in cattle, and at its foundation are cattle movement measures. My hon. Friend is quite right, and we are looking to tighten up on pre-movement testing. We have already introduced an expansion of areas for more frequent testing. We are extending the use of gamma testing, and we will be strengthening enforcement of TB surveillance and control. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are tightening up on cattle movement as an integral part of this package of measures.

Royal Assent