House of Commons
Thursday 29 October 2009
The House met at half-past Ten o'clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Business before questions
Canterbury City Council Bill (By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)
Third Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords] (By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] (By Order)
Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).
City of Westminster Bill [ Lords]
That so much of the Lords message [12 October] as relates to the City of Westminster Bill [ Lords] be now considered.- ( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]
That the promoters of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords]
That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in the Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Canterbury City Council Bill
That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Leeds City Council Bill
That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Nottingham City Council Bill
That the promoters of the Nottingham City Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Reading Borough Council Bill
That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill which was originally introduced in this House in the previous Session on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).-( The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
To be considered on Thursday 5 November.
Oral Answers to Questions
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Secretary of State was asked-
Natural Environment
1. Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's policies to protect the natural environment; and if he will make a statement. [296300]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): We have seen improvements in water quality, more species have been protected, pollution levels are decreasing, and 89 per cent. of our sites of special scientific interest are in a favourable or recovering condition. However, we all need to do more to protect our natural environment, and securing a good deal at Copenhagen would be a very important step forward.
Mrs. Moon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last Monday night I hosted the fourth annual bat and moth evening in the House. A large number of Members attended to see how those vital species, which are interdependent, are declining. In this year when we are celebrating 150 years since the writing of "On the Origin of Species", and with next year being the international year of biodiversity, what is he going to do to ensure that in another 150 years, our descendants will not be attending museums and looking at further bat and moth species that we have lost?
Hilary Benn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on hosting the event, and I am sorry that I was not able to join her for it. The single most important thing that we can do is understand and appreciate more the value of biodiversity, including what it does for us, because it is fundamental to human existence and we have taken it for granted for far too long. It sustains our economy, our clean water and air and the production of our food. We need next year to get a new target internationally agreed that we can measure and make progress on.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that the scourge of ragwort is a shame to this country? His Department has issued a code, which appears to be widely ignored. Will he therefore take steps to see to it that this infection is removed from our countryside?
Hilary Benn: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and we are trying to find the most effective way to deal with such invasive species. I am happy to write to him to set out the steps that we are seeking to take.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to protect the natural environment, we have to get people to visit it? Has he seen the Natural England survey showing that children's access to green space and the natural environment has halved in a generation. What are the Government going to do about that?
Hilary Benn: I have seen that report, and I share my hon. Friend's desire that more people should have the chance to get out there. The national parks provide a wonderful opportunity for that, and of course the coastal access provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which received its Third Reading earlier this week, will provide further opportunities for young people and others to enjoy the beauty of our countryside.
Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con):
It is clear that the Government will break their promise to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. In an admission of failure to the Environmental Audit Committee, they said that it was "never realistically achievable". Now the Secretary of
State talks of more targets for some date way in the future. Is it not the truth that there remains a marked lack of will in the Government to reverse biodiversity loss?
Hilary Benn: I profoundly disagree with that last statement. The Government are very committed. If the hon. Gentleman considers, for example, bird numbers, we have managed in this country to stop the decline that happened between the 1970s and the 1990s. The number of sea birds is up, we have offered protection to Lyme bay to safeguard the pink sea fan and there are otters in every single English county for the first time in 40 years. However, we need to do more, and the point about having a target is that it gives one something to aim for.
Floods (Pitt Report)
2. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): What progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the final Pitt report on the 2007 floods. [296301]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): The Government published their response to the Pitt review last December. It set out what we had already achieved and what we needed to do to implement the remaining recommendations.
We published the first progress report in June 2009, and it showed that further good progress had been made across the board. The next progress report will be published in December.
Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to stop houses being flooded is to stop building them on floodplains? If he agrees, why have the Government presided over building so many houses on so many floodplains?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Ultimately, the hon. Gentleman knows about the progress on the review of planning policy guidance note 25 and that approximately 98 per cent. of developments follow the Environment Agency's recommendations. I am slightly disappointed that he has not remarked on the doubling of investment under the Government for flood defences since 1997.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) (Lab): The Pitt inquiry states that the public utilities should be protected-the fresh water, electricity and waste water plants. That was especially a problem when Carlisle flooded. Has satisfactory progress been made on that?
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is an important point and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we set up a new Cabinet Office team to ensure that critical national infrastructure-for example, power stations-is properly protected from flooding. If we are lucky in what may be in the Queen's Speech-we can never second-guess it-there is an imperative under the Labour Government to get on and deliver the legislation that will give further protection to homes, businesses and infrastructure.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): This Cabinet Office team was meant to meet last year and report by the spring on a national audit of all critical infrastructure at risk. Why has it failed to do that?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to report that that work is well under way. Every time we stand at the Dispatch Box, Conservative Front Benchers harry the Government to do more. They simply ignore what has been done-the £9.7 million awarded to 77 local authorities with the highest risk and potential for surface water flooding; the £5 million currently open for bids to deal with well-known local flooding problems; the £1 million for training, data and other tools for local authorities; and our work on flood forecasting. Sometimes it would pay to stand up and recognise the work that is being done.
Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West) (Lab/Co-op): As a native of Gloucestershire, I saw at first hand the devastation caused by flooding in the Tewkesbury, Gloucester and Cheltenham area. I hope that the Minister agrees that measures to ensure that that never happens again should be introduced as a matter of urgency. What prospects are there of a suitable Bill in the Queen's Speech? What assessment has my hon. Friend made of securing all-party support to get it through as quickly as possible?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I assure my hon. Friend that we are very keen to get on. I welcome the fact that at a conference run by Marketforce and the Institute of Economic Affairs as recently as 15 October, my Opposition Front-Bench colleague said that
"we are concerned that a Bill may be dropped from this final session altogether. The Government will have serious questions to answer if, two years after the Pitt report, there is not only no legislation for the water industry but also nothing to address the urgent problem of flooding."
I can tell my hon. Friend that, through consultation on the draft Bill and through our work, we are keen to get on with it. We cannot presuppose the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, we will have full, solid and cross-party support to deliver the protection that we need for homes and businesses.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): May I ask about the property-level flood protection grant scheme? If householders take measures at their own risk in advance of the survey, which is part of that procedure, is it the case that they cannot be paid retrospectively for the work done? That seems unfair. It is no good waiting until it rains before taking the measures needed to protect one's home.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My understanding is that that is a matter for local authorities, many of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have applied and bid for the funding. However, I am more than happy to write to him with details to clarify the point that he has raised. It is important, and when people take responsible approaches to their properties' resilience, that needs to be recognised, but I will write to him.
Local Food Chains
3. Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): What assistance his Department provides to local food chains. [296302]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jim Fitzpatrick): We provide a range of assistance to local food chains, including helping regional and local food producers to overcome various barriers to market. We have funded meet-the-buyer events for both retailers and the food service sector. We also support farmers markets and farm shops, and encourage the use of food hubs and shared distribution facilities.
Mr. Drew: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is common for people to mouth support for local food chains, but in the past year, two box schemes that I belonged to finished prematurely, which is very disappointing. There is clearly a problem in this day and age. I wonder whether the Government ought to do more, and certainly whether they ought to encourage local authorities to do more.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sure that we would want to do more. Only last week I had a useful meeting with representatives from the National Farmers Retail and Markets Association to discuss a range of issues relating to farmers and markets and farm shops. I commend my hon. Friend on the excellent local food initiatives in his constituency. Only last week, officials from the food policy unit in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Gloucestershire to find out more about a wide range of food-oriented activities that are taking place in the county. I am sure that we will be able to use the information and disseminate it to local authorities to improve the situation even further.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): Did the Minister hear the piece on "Farming Today" this morning on what is likely to happen to food prices over the next 20 years? I will not try your patience, Mr. Speaker, so may I just ask the Minister whether he will add his voice to mine in seeking a full day's debate on agriculture from the Leader of the House?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I remember fondly my first week as Minister of State with responsibility for farming, from 9 June, when I believe that we had two debates in the House on agriculture. We would welcome more debates on agriculture. I suggest the hon. Gentleman applies to your good offices, Mr. Speaker, for that very opportunity. We would be delighted to meet him across the Dispatch Box.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): As we celebrate British food week, may I tell the House that I recently visited the Anglesey oyster fair in my constituency, where I saw the very best of British food? One issue that local producers raised with me was the barrier to getting into local supermarkets. Is it not about time that we had a proper champion-an ombudsman-to redress the balance in favour of the British consumer and the British producer and away from the supermarket?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I think my hon. Friend has managed to merge three questions into one: the retail sector supporting local produce, barriers to local producers getting into supermarkets and the ombudsman. I can assure him that on the ombudsman, the Government are considering the Competition Commission's recommendations. I can also assure him that we are doing what we can to ensure that local producers can get into supermarkets.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |