PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

1569 Easter Adjournment
26 MARCH 2013 Easter Adjournment
1570
6pm
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD): It is
a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South
East (Yasmin Qureshi) and my hon. Friend the Member
for Salisbury (John Glen). They have shown that Backbench
Business Adjournment debates can provide a real insight
into different issues, and they have put them on the
record. Both hon. Members were sombre in their tone,
but I was pleased to note that the hon. Member for
Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have something
in common: we have both been members of Haringey
council. I was slightly surprised to find out—because I
know him reasonably well—that my hon. Friend the
Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) describes
himself as an optimist.
The policy of incineration is being pursued across the
country. Specifically, an incinerator is planned in St Dennis
in my constituency. Since before I was a parliamentary
candidate, I have said consistently that Cornwall should
not go down the route of incinerating its municipal
waste. I have said consistently that St Dennis is the
wrong place for an incinerator and that incineration is
the wrong solution and technology. I have argued for
several years that cheaper, cleaner and greener alternatives
are available to local authorities, yet in Cornwall and in
other local authorities across the country we see a
determination to continue to pursue this one-size-fits-all
solution and off-the-shelf easy win to deal with municipal
waste when alternatives are available. Yes, they might
require a little extra effort, but in the long run they can
deliver huge savings in carbon emissions and money.
Road movements would be reduced as less waste is
ferried around, and that would be better for our country
and our planet.
I was delighted that the respected environmental
waste management consultancy, Eunomia, which has
previously advised Cornwall council, looked recently at
the council’s plans and decided that savings could be
made. Those savings are not insignificant. It suggests
that potentially £320 million of savings can be delivered
to taxpayers in Cornwall if the council revisits its waste
strategy. It makes the point that the contract is outdated
and not fit for purpose, that it no longer fits the overall
policy context of either the UK Government or our
European counterparts, that the PFI credits are poor
value for money, and that with some simple changes
Cornwall can find a different solution that better meets
its needs.
Cornwall currently recycles just 37% of its waste and
has no real plans to improve that rate. Recycling rates
cannot be improved while trying to feed an incinerator
that is ever-hungry for material to burn. The best local
authorities now recycle more than 60%, and recycling
alone could deliver £12 million-worth of savings a year
to the council. Indeed, if we went as far as Surrey
county council, which is hitting a 70% target, there is
potential for still more significant savings. Eunomia
reports that the PFI contract that Cornwall council
agreed with the previous Government is outdated and
not fit for purpose, and that savings can be made there
too.
None of this comes at a time of plenty. We know only
too well in this House that local authorities face a
difficult financial environment. We know from the
representations that we all receive from our constituents
that the money that could be saved—the £320 million
that Cornwall council is throwing away—could be better
used to help to meet people’s needs in their day-to-day
existence.
Perhaps I can put it best by leaving it to the director
of Eunomia, who said:
“Cornwall used to lead the recycling league, but now languishes
in the bottom 25% of local authorities. In the 15 years since the
PFI plan was hatched, the world of waste has moved on and far
better alternatives now exist. Our analysis shows that the PFI
contract is a very expensive way to ensure that Cornwall continues
its poor environmental performance on waste for decades to
come.”
I urge the Minister to get our right hon. Friend the
Chief Secretary to the Treasury to look at this issue on a
value-for-money basis. We are in the last-chance saloon,
but it is not too late.
6.5 pm
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): I
wish to raise two very different issues.
First, Marlborough and Vaughan schools—both
excellent schools in my constituency—are in urgent
need of rebuilding. They were built in the 1960s as
temporary schools. They have problems with asbestos
and other serious defects. Given Harrow’s growing
population of young families, both schools also need to
expand to become three-form entry schools. The council
wrote to the chief executive of the Education Funding
Agency last July to propose a financial agreement involving
funding provided through the priority school building
programme and Harrow’s share of the basic needs
allocation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House
will use his influence, at the very least to speed up a
response to Harrow council’s letter to the EFA—one
containing, I trust, positive news.
Secondly, I hope that the Competition Commission
will investigate the funding of premiership rugby teams.
Together with the Rugby Football Union, Premiership
Rugby is the body that distributes funding to England’s
top rugby clubs. It does so on an uneven and unfair
basis. I understand that London Welsh rugby club
received some £1.4 million from Premiership Rugby to
help to fund players’ salaries, while other premiership
clubs—notably the so-called founder clubs, such as
Sale, Bath, Leicester and Gloucester—receive some
£3.5 million a season. Indeed, figures I have seen for
January suggest that Worcester, London Irish and Sale
all received about three times the funding that London
Welsh received. Given that they are London Welsh’s
rivals for the relegation place, this hardly suggests that a
fair contest is being played out. Indeed, bizarrely, recently
relegated Newcastle also appears to have received three
times more funding in January than London Welsh,
while Bristol and Leeds, which were relegated some
time ago, received almost double the funding that London
Welsh received in January.
In short, there is a clear bias in how funding is
distributed against teams promoted to the premiership.
The funding arrangements have all the appearance of a
cartel. They make it extremely difficult for newly promoted
teams to survive or thrive. To their credit, Exeter and
Worcester have done so, but the vast majority of promoted
clubs struggle to survive beyond a season or two. I have
therefore written to the Office of Fair Trading today
asking it to request an investigation by the Competition
Commission into the funding of rugby clubs. I hope