Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

We have heard many important speeches on puppy farms, but I hope that it will also be acknowledged that it equally affects kittens, as the motion states. Having been a cat owner all my life—my current cat is called Naughty Cat—I hope that we can also ask for the regulation to be reviewed to take account of the impact on kittens and that owners are made suitably aware of the issue when seeking to buy a new cat.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention—my cats, Monty and Maggie, will have cheered. They are very proud that they came from properly licensed breeders.

Despite the obvious concerns about animal cruelty, horrific breeding conditions, malnourishment, lack of socialisation, lack of immunisation and de-worming, contracting infectious diseases and puppies being separated from their mothers too early, people unknowingly support puppy farming by purchasing pups from unlicensed breeders, thereby fuelling the puppy farming industry and putting themselves at risk of spending thousands of pounds on a puppy that is doomed to die soon after reaching his or her new home.

We know that one in three purchased pets come through pet shops online, particularly sites such as Gumtree, which was very slow to react to improve standards, or via newspaper adverts. Credit is due to the Pup Aid campaign, set up by Marc Abraham—Marc the vet from television, who is a celebrity—with great support from the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Blue Cross, Cats Protection, Dogs Rescue Protection and the RSPCA. All the heavyweights from the animal welfare world support this incredibly important campaign.

In summary, we want to see mandatory regulation and licensing for all dog breeders in the UK, rather than just those who breed four or more litters a year, and a ban on pet shops selling puppies. The majority of pet shop puppies come from farms, and there is no reason to allow that to continue. There should be stricter adherence to the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, which demands that no person may keep a breeding establishment for dogs without a licence granted by the proper authority. The granting of a licence requires inspections of breeding practices and premises by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner and an officer of the authority, giving consumers confidence, as supported by 95% of the British public.

We must also ensure that enforcement is consistent, good and happens everywhere, because all too often it is patchy at best. There needs to be strict adherence to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which Pup Aid believes requires secondary legislation. I would not normally call for regulation, but on a matter of such importance, and with great support from the public, I think that this is one of those times when we can push for it. It would repeal any outdated legislation and could be introduced to prohibit the licensing of pet shops or retail outlets that sell puppies or kittens where the mother is not present. However, regulation alone is inadequate. We also need to ensure that enforcement officers are well trained and supported so that there are more frequent and tighter inspections for breeders, giving consumers confidence that they are getting what they believe they are getting.

In conclusion, we need to end the free-for-all of mass breeding of puppies and kittens that prioritises profit over welfare. The public want action and I and other Members across the House fully support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That point is absolutely right.

We have to resist the temptation to legislate. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) that I am not sure that it would be wise to stop pet shops selling puppies through legislation in this place. That might be too heavy-handed. We have to be careful that we do not, because of our concern and emotion about these subjects, bring in more legislation that might be unenforceable. We must remember that enormous numbers of puppies are brought in from without the jurisdiction and from where we have very little control.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) makes an important point. First, we need to enforce the legislation that we already have. Local authorities have the powers. Secondly, we need to proclaim the message that the key to this problem—all the organisations and charities that are involved in this matter agree with him about this—is to inform the consumer. It is the consumer who must make the informed choice, as we did, to go to the dog breeders to see the puppy with the mother. They should not buy a puppy in some halfway location or go to a pet shop. They should do their research and work out whether they have the resources to look after what is a living creature. I hope that we can send that message from the debate, rather than calling for more and more legislation.

[Nicola Blackwood]

Would my hon. Friend like to explain how he would expect consumers to divine hidden illnesses among puppies and kittens that they are trying to buy?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a fair point, but we can send out the message that if people go to a responsible dog breeder rather than buy a puppy off the internet, they are far more likely to acquire a dog that will not have behavioural problems in the future and will have been raised with its mother in a healthy and proper way.

We need to explore how better to enforce existing legislation rather than add to the already deep panoply of laws and regulations. The Government are committed to not increasing regulation unless absolutely necessary. They should consider how they can better help local authorities to work against puppy farms, and Members of all parties, working together, must ensure that we create safe and humane conditions for animals throughout the United Kingdom.

Flooding

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating the senior members of the Environment Agency and all the staff who have worked so hard in his area. I am also happy to congratulate and thank all those on the ground who came out with chainsaws to work in such a public-spirited manner, as has been touched on by other Members.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

My constituency has also flooded, which has led to one tragedy and widespread disruption and anxiety. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the Environment Agency and the emergency services for their tireless work over the Christmas period. However, despite their ever-increasing water bills, my constituents are again facing foul water flooding from sewers that simply cannot cope with flooding. What is he doing to put pressure on water companies to be more prepared for flood events and to ensure that we prevent these very distressing incidents from recurring?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Very few water shortages have been reported, but we have had incidents of sewage flooding, which she has touched on. Apart from all the other problems of flooding, that is horrendous. We will certainly look at that issue and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, will talk to the water companies about it.

Flood Insurance

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this timely and important debate. I have 1,627 homes and businesses in my constituency that are at significant risk of flooding. I have visited streets in Abingdon, Kidlington and Oxford where ripped-out carpets, kitchen units and discarded furniture were all piled up and abandoned on pavements in 2007, and that sight is branded on my memory. I guarantee that not a single one of those home owners has forgotten that summer, and since then we have had any number of flood warnings that serve, like tremors after an earthquake, to reawaken the anxiety of that week of flooding and the reconstruction that followed. It cost the county £3 million and the country £3 billion.

For those who live at flood risk, there is no respite. Instead, they live in a constant state of uncertainty, never knowing what our delightful British climate will bring. Uncertainty driven by weather is one thing, but uncertainty that is driven by our response to flood risk is another. Other than by inventing a weather machine we are not going to eliminate flood risk, but we have three, interdependent levers to mitigate flood risk and limit the stress that it brings. Those are flood insurance, flood defences and individual property and community resilience.

Whether people are rampant climate sceptics or paid-up members of the Green party, most studies show clearly that changing weather patterns mean that flooding is on the increase, while population increases and poor planning have exacerbated the problem dramatically. We will have to get better at using those levers to mitigate that risk. In particular, overloaded infrastructure, such as drainage capacity, is leaving increasing numbers of constituents at the mercy of not only notoriously hard-to- respond-to surface water, but revolting episodes of effluent flooding. I am aghast that in this day and age I have constituents who have to cope with sewage coming into their homes simply because it is raining. We are supposed to be living in a highly developed country. The worst thing is that the insurance situation means that they feel gagged because they do not want to put their local property market at risk.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s description of seeing homes in her constituency flooded reminds me of the problems I saw in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on 10 and 11 June, when more than 300 homes were flooded. Does she share my view that in addition to the flood insurance issue, we need to spend sufficient capital to ensure that the surface drainage system is sufficient to mitigate such problems when heavy rainfall occurs?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I agree that infrastructure is vital. I believe deeply that many of the problems we face today stem from an inherited legacy of bad planning.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

rose—

[Nicola Blackwood]

My right hon. Friend—ish—the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) knows how difficult it can be to get accountability and solutions for constituents when responsibility falls between the Environment Agency, local authorities and Thames Water, and he might want to comment on that point.

[Mr Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend-ish for giving way.

Flood waters are no respecters of constituency boundaries and we work closely on these issues. On planning, does the hon. Lady agree that, given that successive Governments and councils of all complexions have allowed so much development on the floodplain, it is perfectly proper for the state to pick up some of the responsibility by participating in insurance schemes, such as “Flood Re”, which are the only way to protect our constituents from unaffordable premiums?

[Nicola Blackwood]

Clearly, it is vital that flood insurance continues to be widely available and affordable, a point I will come to in a moment. Although there is frustration about the responsibility of different agencies working together to respond to constituents, the emergency response to flood events locally since 2007 has improved dramatically, and there have been positive developments on flood defences in Kidlington and Oxford.

However, none of that addresses the long-term strategic challenges we face, and insurance has to be at the top of that list. That is why, with all the other urgent flooding priorities that we have heard about, we have to focus on the 30 June deadline. That date dominates the lives of far too many of my constituents. They fear that they will suddenly become uninsurable, breach their mortgage conditions and have unsellable properties. While I appreciate that negotiations with the Association of British Insurers have been complex and that there is no easy solution, especially with the current fiscal situation, it is not as if we did not see this coming—it has been coming since the statement of principles was agreed in 2002.

If we are not going to hit the deadline, we need to be clear and transparent with constituents about what will happen between then and any future deal. Until now, the line has been not to undermine negotiations by giving a running commentary on them. That is not unreasonable and had an agreement been reached in time, I think that all would have been forgiven, but people need to know now how to protect themselves. Ministers have been clear about their priorities, which are to ensure that flood insurance remains widely available, affordable and fiscally sustainable. Nobody is going to argue with any of those principles, but they will not help householders to work out how to plan for their financial future.

I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. On the stroke of midnight on 30 June, will we have a free market or will we have some kind of interim extension of the statement of principles? If it is the latter, have there been any discussions about what form it will take? If the Government are going to let the free market emerge in the interim, will Ministers let it be genuinely uncontrolled, with all the pricing risks that holds, or are they considering regulation? If so, what kind of regulation, and how and when? On “Flood Re”, the current cross-subsidy is £8. Yesterday the ABI told me that the proposed levy would also come to £8, but it would have to be formalised as a tax. However, the National Flood Forum brief estimates the levy at £13. What assessment have the Government made of the levy and what mechanism would they need to regulate it? Finally, what measures are being considered to incentivise flood defence investment on a personal, local and national level? That is the only responsible way to manage flood risk on an ongoing basis.

I accept that it takes two to tango. I met the ABI yesterday and I made those points, but I am afraid that today it is the Minister’s turn. My constituents deserve to know whether their homes will be insured in July and on what terms. They deserve at least that measure of certainty, even though they live in a flood-risk zone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have a number of constituents in the same boat who bring the same concerns to me.

Given that the statement of principles comes to an end in June, the future looks very uncertain for many of my constituents and those of Members throughout the House, so I welcome the motion today. I want to focus on a village in my constituency situated to the south of York, on the banks of the River Ouse. Large parts of Naburn are at a significant risk of flooding. Late last year, I was contacted by a Naburn resident who informed me that, over the past 37 years, his property has been badly flooded on four separate occasions. In the six months since last autumn’s terrible wet weather, some homes in Naburn have been flooded numerous times. Thankfully, the people of Naburn have a strong sense of community spirit. They are Yorkshire folk, after all, and they are starting to pull together to do all they can to reduce their collective flood risk.

Following a public meeting in the village in November, the parish council and a group of interested residents set up a working group to investigate inexpensive and cost-effective measures that they can swiftly enact to help them deal with flooding before it affects their properties.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I suspect that my hon. Friend is about to describe a flood group like the Oxford Flood Alliance, which he and I are familiar with. It plays a huge role in reducing flood risk in Oxford by coming up with flood plans, mitigating flood risk in communities and developing flood resilience. Does he agree that this is a really important thing to encourage, and that any future flood insurance scheme must encourage such developments?

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Local flood groups are very important for our communities. I am sure that, like my community flood group, my hon. Friend’s is working hard with the Environment Agency, the local authority and the local water and drainage boards to improve flood resistance capabilities.

Some ideas that have been considered include allowing local residents to have control over mobile pumping units and sandbag storage and delivery and to use their local knowledge to protect the most vulnerable people. We must not forget that there are some severely vulnerable people in flood-risk areas, and we must make sure that they do not become isolated by flooding. Independently, many people are considering making flood resilience improvements to their own homes.

The hard work, positive action and sense of resolve that I have witnessed in Naburn is extraordinary, and the community should be commended for its collective approach to the problems that it faces. I am well aware that, as has been pointed out, there are similar stories across the country of communities coming together to battle the difficulties of flooding, and they should all be commended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate. I am grateful for the chance to speak, because many of my constituents, especially in Paulsgrove, Cosham, Drayton and Farlington, have been affected by these issues.

We have good sea defences in Portsmouth, but we have a very dilapidated sewerage and drainage system that has caused many of the problems on and around the Portsdown Hill area. A programme of works is now in place to rectify those problems, and so far we have been able to protect local people from the increases in their insurance premiums as they have had to submit repeated claims for repeated flooding and sewerage leaks.

I agree with many of the points that have been made, and I will not go over them again. I wish to touch on two additional issues that add insult to injury. The first of these is planning. Planning applications are approved even when the new build is on a serious floodplain. An applicant for a dementia care home in my constituency attempted to placate the planning committee by saying—I kid you not—that because the building was high-rise, if there were a flood the residents would be able to get to high ground. The application was approved. The advice of local planning committees and the Environment Agency is often ignored, or their decisions overturned.

I hope that there could be an incentive for a slightly more responsible stance on these issues. There is a gap in the market for an “Environment Agency Says No” website, so that whether it is a house or a care home place being purchased, the consumer would be able to check whether the agency has given the site and the development the thumbs up.

[Nicola Blackwood]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about Environment Agency approval of floodplains. She began by talking about dilapidated sewerage systems. Does she agree that we need to include Thames Water more in decisions about planning, because a lot of our drainage systems are causing problems with surface water flooding?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is right. The Environment Agency has told me that it would like to be more involved with such planning decisions and there are many other organisations that we should take advice from.

The transparency that I have described would not deal with current cases, but it would head off future grief by providing an incentive for developers to behave more responsibly.

The final issue that I will touch on is compensation for deliberate flooding. There have been cases in my county, although not in my constituency, of landowners having their land flooded deliberately by the local authority to prevent greater damage elsewhere. That is quite understandable, but in such cases the landowner should be able to access some form of compensation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on that.

Finally, I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton and all Members who have made possible this timely debate on an important issue.

Flood Defences

Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

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

According to the Association of British Insurers, Oxford West and Abingdon is the constituency with the 49th highest flood risk in the UK, with more than 2,000 homes and businesses at significant risk of flooding. That assessment excludes risks associated with surface flooding caused by heavy rainfall. Despite the high level of local flood risk, the Oxford flood risk management scheme received such a low cost-benefit analysis that even under the new “all or part or none” funding provisions, it will be necessary to find non-Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding for 92% of the project, or approximately £127 million of the £133 million project. At the same time, in Abingdon, where nearly 500 homes and businesses were flooded badly in 2007, neither of the flood storage proposals for the River Stert or the River Ock reached even that level of cost-benefit threshold: they were rejected outright as “not economically viable”.

Those decisions have been disappointing to many, especially those whose homes and families are at risk of flooding, but everyone understands that we are in a time of austerity and that the money must go where it will do the most good—that is fair. Having said that, we heard just before the recess the good news that there would be a lot of weir work going on: Osney weirs A and B and Godstow weir B will receive funding. Design and appraisal work for raised flood defences at Lower Wolvercote, and the Farm road scheme in Abingdon in partnership with the Vale of White Horse district council, will go ahead. This last project’s bid for £40,000 in funding was rejected in December. I am pleased that the Environment Agency has had a change of heart on its viability.

I began this debate by outlining at some length the flood context in my constituency, and will come on to discuss the key issue—funding the replacement for Northmoor weir from flood defence funding—for two reasons. The first is to make the Minister appreciate fully that for far too many people in my constituency, the spending of flood defence money is not a bureaucratic issue to do with balance sheets. Hundreds of people were made homeless for months in 2007, losing prized possessions, mementos and even pets to the floods. Those memories are still raw. Given the current economic situation, we have had to cut flood defence funding by 6%. I need to be able to assure those constituents that, even where money cannot be spent locally, the Government are spending, transparently and accountably, each and every penny of available flood defence funding in the best possible way. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

Secondly, I am not taking issue with flood funding provision in other parts of my constituency today. My concern, and that of my constituents, is the Environment Agency’s programme to replace all paddle and rymer weirs on health and safety grounds and, in particular, the replacement of the Northmoor weir in the village of Appleton in my constituency. My constituents in Appleton and elsewhere have opposed the idea since before my election. Indeed, my first meeting with the Environment Agency and local residents on the subject dates back to before I was elected in 2010. The Minister knows the background only too well following our extensive correspondence, but for the sake of colleagues, I will outline the salient points.

Northmoor weir, like all paddle and rymer weirs, is manually operated by lock-keepers who pull the paddles and rymers out of the weir system to adjust the water levels. The weir has been operating in that way for more than 200 years. Northmoor weir was extensively refurbished in 1995 and given a 40 to 60-year lifespan. Between 2008 and 2010, however, the Environment Agency decided to conduct extensive health and safety tests on the weirs. It is unclear why it suddenly decided to do so, given that the relevant legislation dates back to 1992, before the refurbishment of Northmoor weir, and given that there is no record of a serious injury, which might reasonably be supposed to have triggered such a response.

The report, by HJ Consultants, was of the opinion that it was only a matter of time before there was a major injury on the paddle and rymer weir. That is despite the fact that the only injuries recorded under the safety, health and environmental reporting and management system since 2000 are strains, sprains and splinters. Even before the introduction of that system, the assessor could only record one brain haemorrhage, in 1991, that may or may not be attributed to the pulling of a paddle and, before the introduction of safety harnesses, an incident in which a lock-keeper at Blakes weir fell in. I assume that safety harnesses have now addressed that situation.

The consultant found that the loads at the weir exceeded the levels recommended by the Health and Safety Executive, but found no evidence that that had caused any significant problem in more than two centuries of use, even though the consultant found that there had been no regular programme of health and safety training offered to lock-keepers, with one lock-keeper last receiving manual handling training more than seven years ago. Just think how many fewer sprains and splinters there might have been if regular training had been provided during that time, and if there was a work pattern that provided a formal break for lock-keepers in the morning, as recommended on page five.

Should the Minister think I am being a little hard on lock-keepers, here is what one of them wrote to the Prime Minister on the issue:

“My work over the years included the operation of both Paddle and Rymer and more modern weirs, and I can say that, with proper training, care and safety precautions, there was very little danger involved. Any equipment can be worked dangerously. The worst scenario was the possibility of misjudging the placing of a rymer or a paddle in the flowing water: one had the choice between trying to save it or losing it through the weir! It was not a very hard choice! Also, it was not actually lost, and would float around in the vicinity until retrieved later.”

That is just one of many similar comments I have received from Thames lock-keepers. Nevertheless, it was on the basis of that health and safety report that the Environment Agency decided it was imperative to spend £2.6 million from the flood defence funds to replace Northmoor weir.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate, which of course touches on matters that affect my constituency, too. Will she join me in congratulating the Oxford Flood Alliance for its work, and does she agree that the Environment Agency generally takes better decisions when it takes notice of what the OFA and local residents have to say? Even if the health and safety case was accepted, the Environment Agency should be funding the project not from flood prevention money, but from some other budget.

[Nicola Blackwood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Oxford Flood Alliance has stated publicly, and to me personally, that it has significant reservations about the project.

The Environment Agency has stated that the project will improve the weir’s resilience and speed of operation. At a meeting of the Environment Agency, Northmoor and Appleton parish councillors and me in December, the EA acknowledged that there had never been any problem with the operation of the weir, even in times of flood. It is important to note that the project will not reduce flood risk. The EA specifically confirmed to me in writing, and at the meeting of December 2011, that the project will not reduce flood risk in any way, and that in any case—according to the EA—the number of properties affected directly by the operation of the weir amounts to five. That comes out at £500,000 per property, if we are counting. Nevertheless, the finance will still come from the flood defence budget.

According to the EA in December 2011, the project has such high priority that it would go ahead even if it cost £10 million. On hearing that extraordinary statement, I became uncomfortably well acquainted with the health and safety apparatus of Whitehall, as every good constituency MP should. On writing to the HSE, to ask whether such a position was reasonable, I was told:

“The EA has carried out an extensive risk assessment. The aim of the risk assessment is to help the EA identify reasonably practicable ways of reducing or controlling the risks of injury from operating the weirs. As part of this, the EA would need to consider costs and their likely effectiveness in reducing the risks.”

I have been astonished to learn, however, that EA policy is apparently not to conduct cost-benefit analyses for health and safety projects, even if they come from flood defence funding, a budget considered so precious that all flood defence proposals must be subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I was told by the EA in December that that was because the policy was to eliminate all risk.

Being joyfully unfamiliar with the health and safety world until then, I thought that cost-benefit analyses might not generally be conducted for health and safety. In fact, the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, which are the relevant health and safety regulations, state:

“The extent of the employer’s duty to avoid manual handling or to reduce the risk of injury is determined by reference to what is ‘reasonably practicable’. This duty can be satisfied if the employer can show that the cost of any further preventive steps would be grossly disproportionate to the further benefit from their introduction.”

The concept of “so far as is reasonably practicable” was tested in case law as far back as 1949, in Edwards v. National Coal Board, which established that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk, is placed on the other. If it be shown that there is gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the duty is laid has discharged the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable.

It is clear, therefore, that what is required by law is not to eliminate the risk, as I was informed, but to reduce the risk to what is reasonably practicable and to consider the cost of doing so. Any action in which the cost was grossly disproportionate would not be required by law, and the HSE expected the EA to have considered the cost. Indeed, freely available on the HSE website I found not one but two helpful documents that walked me through how to do a cost-benefit analysis for a health and safety project, one of which even had a user-friendly checklist. I am not a lawyer, though, so I asked to see the EA’s legal advice, to see if there were grounds for the multi-million-pound health and safety investment that I had failed to grasp. The EA, however, confirmed that before committing to the full replacement of nine paddle and rymer weirs as the only appropriate level of response to its legal responsibilities under health and safety legislation, it had taken no legal advice of any kind.

The picture is now fairly clear, but before closing, I will express one further concern that has arisen in discussions about EA plans for Northmoor weir. It is about the really poor standard of consultation and communication that has marked the process from the beginning. Appleton residents, who will bear the brunt of building disruption if the project goes ahead, found out about the project when there was an application for suspension of parking along the route to the weir. Understandably, that led to outrage in the village and a vigorous local campaign by the parish council and the Weir Action Group, but despite delaying the work for a year, ostensibly to consult with the local community, the only change that the EA has made to the project so far was the proposal for a change of access route, so that Appleton residents experience less disruption during the two years that the work will take.

Obviously, if the weir goes ahead regardless of every objection I have put forward today, it is clearly preferable that the works route is not directly through the village, but the local objections, and the objections from some on the far side of the river and from others at risk of flooding in the rest of my constituency, are not simply about a works route. They are about the whole justification of the project, and its funding from the flood defence budget. To characterise them as anything else is simply inaccurate and misleading.

Other concerns about the quality of consultation have come to me from owners of nearby land considered for use in possible access routes. One wrote to me to say:

“At no time has the EA been in direct contact with us (or any of the relevant landowners I believe). I first heard of the whole project in February 2010—the proposed start date for the project then was 1 April 2010! I was then rung by a neighbouring farmer to warn me that the Contractors for the EA were going to come and survey our land but…the Contractors…had been unable to find out who owned our land and had contacted him for our telephone number. I phoned the contractors who paid me a visit prior to doing the survey. They were perfectly pleasant but I think as shocked as I was that the EA had not been in contact with me. The survey was duly done but we have never received any information or follow up from either the Contractors or the EA since”.

I am afraid that that example is not isolated. Failure to follow up meetings, to contact individuals or to communicate more widely have been hallmarks of the project so far.

The EA accepted in the December 2011 meeting that there had been significant such failures, but that does not seem to have stopped it, as is evident from a letter from the chairman of the board of the Environment Agency—briefed, I assume, by his officials—to the Minister. The letter claims that I believed that the £2.6 million being spent on the weir should be transferred to other local flood defence schemes. The Minister must know that I have never made that suggestion, and nor would I.

I said that when other flood defence schemes locally were being turned down, it was difficult to justify spending £2.6 million on health and safety, which is what it is. I said that flood defence money must be allocated on the grounds of greatest need, wherever that might be. I fully accept that, and my constituents fully accept that, but I am unable to assure my constituents that that is what is happening in this case, because the necessary due diligence on the project was never done. I said that when every flood defence proposal that is granted funding is first tested to destruction by EA cost-benefit analysis models, it is incomprehensible that in this case the EA is willing to spend millions of flood defence money with no cost-benefit analysis of any kind, with no legal advice of any kind and with no analysis of alternatives that would work for Northmoor weir specifically.

I ask the Minister, therefore, to ensure that the EA suspends the project until there has been a full and transparent cost-benefit analysis. On Wednesday, I discussed the project with the Prime Minister, as the MP for the other side of the weir, so I know that he has also written to the Minister asking for that to be done. The Prime Minister is also concerned that we should be able to defend our flood defence spending fully to the public. We will not be able to do so, however, until there is also sound legal advice that this multi-million pound health and safety investment is reasonably practicable, and not grossly disproportionate, and, most sensible of all, until we have a genuine Northmoor-specific study to see if there are more proportionate options that will meet the EA’s genuine health and safety obligations.

My constituents face flood risk daily, but they are not asking for preferential treatment or for funding of projects that do not meet the cost-benefit thresholds set by DEFRA. All they want to know is that flood defence money is being spent on genuine flood defence projects, and that every single penny of that budget can be transparently accounted for. All they want is a fair playing field.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing the debate and her reputation around Whitehall as a doughty champion of her constituents. I am delighted to respond to her concerns about the replacement of the manually operated paddle and rymer weir at Northmoor with a mechanised radial gate system.

My initial reaction was similar: how can the Environment Agency justify spending £2.5 million on a weir when the money could be better spent protecting people and property? I can appreciate people’s frustration with the expenditure of such a large sum of money on the works and with two summers of disruption in the constituencies affected, apparently just to meet a health and safety requirement with little flood risk benefit. My hon. Friend also expressed concerns about the decision to proceed without undertaking a full assessment of the flood benefits of the new structure. I shall take those points in turn.

First, I ought to set out the Environment Agency’s case for replacing the structure. A succession of weirs along the Thames, some in my constituency, regulate water levels. In a flood event, it is vital that the weir does not obstruct the flow of water, otherwise the north side of the river—in the case of the Northmoor weir—will flood.

[Nicola Blackwood]

The Environment Agency has confirmed that the replacement of the Northmoor weir will not improve the flood risk. Is the Minister claiming that the replacement of Northmoor weir is to improve flood risk?

[Richard Benyon]

I shall come on to that, because there is a flood risk issue, which I will cover later in my remarks.

The Northmoor weir is one of five major weirs being replaced as part of a single contract. The other four are already under construction or are now in place. The high price tag is a consequence of the size of the structure: the weir is more than 22 metres wide, stretching right across the Thames. The replacement has a predicted operational life of at least 60 years, and similar structures elsewhere have already proven effective and reliable. The problems with the existing weir structure have been known for some time.

During flood conditions, Environment Agency staff must lift an effective weight of up to 60 kg to shift the paddles. That is four times the safe working load recommended by the Health and Safety Executive. It is just about possible for two people to operate the paddles together, but at an awkward angle and at twice the safe working load. In the mid-1990s, an attempt was made to find a cheap and cheerful approach to solving the problem by replacing the wooden paddles with fibreglass. That reduced the weight of the paddles, but did little to solve the real problem. The sheer force of water, particularly on the deeper paddles, makes the job hard.

Two independent reports have been produced on the operational risks involved. As well as the weight, manual operation of the weir in response to flood alerts means working in difficult weather conditions for several hours. It is dangerous and tiring work. There are many weirs and gates along this stretch of the river that all need to be operated in tandem to prevent flooding of the houses to the north of the river. That is a key point. The structures need to be operated quickly when flooding is predicted, and an injury to a staff member halfway through would exacerbate local flooding.

[Nicola Blackwood]

First, will the Minister accept that, despite those working conditions, there is no record of any serious injury on the weir? Secondly, will he accept that the number of properties directly affected are, as the Environment Agency stated at the December meeting, five?

[Richard Benyon]

If the weir does not work, properties will be flooded. We can argue that the existing paddle and rymer weir works perfectly well, but as my hon. Friend knows, the Environment Agency has received consultants’ reports stating that the working load is way in excess of what one would normally allow for employees. I am sure that that she would agree that she and I as employers in business would have to take note of advice that is given. One always tries to do that proportionately, but it must be understood that the advice was given. It would be difficult for the Government to sit at arm’s length and ignore advice that the loading is four times too high and the risks that emanate from that. It is difficult for Ministers to overrule such advice, but I will talk about that further.

The Health and Safety Executive has seen the reports from the Environment Agency and the Appleton Weir Action Group and has written back in support of the agency’s position. As a responsible employer, the Environment Agency cannot ignore the advice of the Health and Safety Executive. Sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option. The weir clearly poses risks to those who must operate it and to those live in the neighbouring constituency. An assessment of risk is not just about whether there have been accidents, but about the potential for accidents. I am a sceptic of all matters relating to health and safety, and I do not come to the matter as a quisling of the health and safety industry, for that is what it has become. I come to it as a sceptic, like my hon. Friend. I have looked at the matter in great detail, and if I were an employer on the board of the Environment Agency, I would find it difficult to ignore the report.

That brings me to the flood benefits of the weir, and why they have not been assessed for this project. The flood risk in the area is well known. Around 80 houses behind the north bank have a 1% chance or greater of flooding each year. In flood conditions, the Northmoor weir is opened, so that flood water can pass through as quickly as possible. The relationship between the weir structure and flood risk is well understood and would not benefit from further investigation. Doing that would have added unnecessary and damaging cost to an already expensive project.

[Richard Benyon]

During my long discussions with the Environment Agency, I became convinced that it really does understand the flood risks. I do not believe that it spends money without looking carefully at the alternatives. I have seen all eight or nine alternatives that have been presented—many of them were untried and untested as a means of lifting the paddle and rymers out using mechanical systems—as well as replacements with alternative schemes. All of them, because of the design processes that would have to be applied and the further delay, would have cost more. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is understood throughout the Environment Agency and my Department that every penny that we spend must be spent in the right way. We ensure that the budgets that we manage go as far as possible, and I will come on to explain why the spending must go ahead.

Given that something must be done, the Environment Agency has focused on identifying the cheapest and best way to solve the problem. It looked into the matter in considerable detail, and I have seen the summary of the detailed analysis, which points to the radial gate solution that the agency is pursuing. The other options would be more expensive, and in some cases there would be no guarantee that they would even work, because they are untried in other areas. Replacing the weir will not remove risks altogether, but it will reduce them to a reasonable level for the staff concerned and provide more reliable long-term protection for those living on the flood plain to the north.

When reviewing the background to the matter, I also considered the steps the Environment Agency has taken to consult local residents on the project. Objections have been raised, primarily from those who are not at risk of flooding, but who will suffer increased traffic and disruption during the work, and I entirely understand that.

[Nicola Blackwood]

That is not entirely accurate. I have received objections to the weir project from people who are at risk of flooding throughout my constituency and nearby constituencies.

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely accept that. I am talking about the local community, and the most vociferous objections are about disruption. I do not want to disrupt people’s lives more than we must. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that I want to put on record that others are strongly supportive. Northmoor parish council has twice written to the Environment Agency urging it to proceed with the work as soon as possible.

Proposals to replace the five weirs have been considered by the Thames Regional Flood Defence Committee, and it has agreed to include them in the flood defence programme. That is important because the committee is made up of elected councillors from local authorities in the region. They provide a degree of local democratic input and accountability for decisions to allocate funding. They will not have taken the decision to allocate £2.5 million to Northmoor lightly, and they recognise other flood defence priorities in the region.

Over the past two years, the Environment Agency has consulted extensively with local residents and listened to their concerns about the scheme. I am sure that many would like to have had more, and I will take up the matter of the contractor, which causes me genuine concern. The agency has heard what people have been saying about the increased traffic south of the river and made substantial adjustments to the plans, at an additional cost of £100,000 to the project.

The work has the support of Northmoor parish council and the Thames Regional Flood Defence Committee. Despite limited national funds, the Environment Agency’s board has allocated funding to allow it to proceed. The chair of the Environment Agency wrote to me last week setting out the justification for the project. I have heard my hon. Friend’s points, and the views she expresses on behalf of her constituents. I have considerable sympathy but, as is common, there are two sides to the story. I am satisfied that this is a case not of health and safety gone mad, but of something needing to be done to solve a problem that perhaps should have been sorted out some time ago. I am sorry, but I do not take the view that, just because there has not been an accident, one may not occur.

I understand that there may be areas where consultation could have been improved. I will make every effort to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend raised are answered, and I will do so in a letter as we are running out of time. I assure her that I will continue to converse with her and do my best to minimise the impact on her constituents. I want to put it on the record that I fight to ensure that every penny of money that is spent on flood alleviation schemes is spent in the best way possible, and I hope that she will come to realise that the problem has been dealt with in the best possible way.

Question put and agreed to.