Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this timely debate.

I refer Members to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on dog control and welfare and the Government response to it, and in welcoming the Minister, my hon. Friend for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his position, may I add that I hope his views have not changed too much since he contributed to that report? I also support the comment of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South that a review of existing legislation is needed.

In the limited time available, I want to make some brief points. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the role of self-regulation, but I am slightly confused as to why he put so much emphasis on pet shops, because my understanding is that they are the one part of the trade that is pretty much regulated; the evidence we received in our report, which was published together with our recommendations, suggests that the Pet Animals Act 1951 pretty much covers that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he has had any representations that the Act should be improved or reviewed.

I would also like the Minister to update us on the Government’s response to our report: are the Government working with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group on the issue of sales of pets online, and, in particular, are they supporting the work to develop a voluntary code of practice? If the voluntary code is to succeed, it must have good animal welfare at its heart.

The message from the House today should be that there is a role for self-regulation. Any responsible potential dog or cat owner should not be buying puppies or kittens where the mother is not present. That is so self-evident that I wonder whether we need not to legislate on it but simply to go out and educate the public.

I congratulate all the charities involved. They briefed the Select Committee in the context of our report, and it is important to recognise their work, although the following is not an exhaustive list: Blue Cross in my constituency; Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; the Dogs Trust; the Dog Rescue Federation; the wonderfully and aptly named Four Paws. I also want to pay tribute to those who fund these charities. In doing so, they are taking many stray dogs and cats off our streets.

I am asking the Minister today to tackle the rogue backstreet breeders and the rogue importers who import animals from puppy farms across the European Union. I hope that he will take this opportunity to update the House on internet advertising and on the voluntary code. Each and every one of us must do everything possible to discourage irresponsible dog breeders, and we need to set a lower threshold for licensing breeders.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether his views have changed since he made his positive and welcome contribution to our discussions when adopting our report on dog control and welfare. Does he, for example, still hold to the view that, under the legislation, five litters a year should be the maximum, because a bitch would not be in a good enough state to have any more? That was his personal view at that time, and we benefited from his sterling contribution to our report. Has his view changed since he was with us on the Committee? I remind the House that the Committee’s conclusion was that five litters a year was too many. We recommended that a requirement to breed no more than two litters a year should be written on the face of the licence. Also, we would like to support better publicity for puppy contracts. I commend our report and recommendations to the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who I know has been a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I am sure he will recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) said, that I pursued these issues when I was a member of the Select Committee. It would be remiss of me of not to mention Mono, my now deceased pet dog. He was a rescue dog from the RSPCA who, like many others, was a wonderfully dedicated friend, albeit with some behavioural issues.

Let me deal first with some of the issues on which the Government have made progress—tackling irresponsible owners, for example. We have increased the penalty for serious dog attacks and have made it an offence to have a dog attack on private land. We have tightened the law, too, when it comes to dog attacks on guide dogs, and we have introduced compulsory chipping. I recognise, however, that today’s theme has been about a different issue—the welfare of puppies. I have always been clear that we must look after the welfare of puppies and ensure that they are properly socialised. As many hon. Members have mentioned, that is crucial for the behaviour of the dogs as they grow up and mature.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked me to tear up my script and speak from the heart. I can confirm that I never asked for a script in the first place. I scribbled some notes of what Members said, and I want to use the available time to deal with as many points as I can.

On pet passports, I can confirm that a new EU regulation is tightening the rules of the EU pet passport scheme. From December this year, it will no longer be possible for a dog under 12 weeks to be vaccinated prior to transportation under the scheme. There is then a three-week period throughout which the puppy must remain in residence before it can be moved. In practice, that means that from December this year, no puppy or dog can be lawfully transported to this country under the pet passport scheme unless it is at least 15 weeks old.

Many hon. Members rightly raised the issue of the internet. The biggest concerns put to us by the animal welfare charities related not so much to the problem of puppy farms as to that of backstreet breeders that are completely unregulated and unlicensed. In many cases, the people involved are not the right people to be breeding dogs at all, and in the worst cases, they maltreat the puppies deliberately to make them violent by giving them violent traits—the so-called “status dogs”. That is a major concern, which is why at the end of last year, my noble Fried Lord de Mauley brought together a group in connection with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to put in place a voluntary code, which has been running since the beginning of the year. I can tell hon. Members today that, since that code was put in place, 100,000 adverts have been removed from the internet. I pay tribute to the work done by the internet companies that acted so responsibly and by all the volunteers who took part in monitoring the internet for that purpose. Given the scale of the problem, I hope hon. Members will understand that making further progress on the internet continues to be our main priority.

Let me touch on the contentious issue of the five-litter threshold, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She is right. When I sat on the Committee, we highlighted some concerns about the five-litter threshold being too high. Hon. Members who follow what has happened will know that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 states that anyone carrying on a business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence, irrespective of the number of litters. However, a second clause, always intended as an anti-avoidance clause, said that irrespective of who owns the puppies on a particular premise, a licence is compulsory if there are more than five litters. That was to prevent people from claiming that some of dogs belonged to their brothers, sisters, father or whoever.

Over the last few years, however, or since the legislation was introduced, it has been apparent that local authorities have taken the five-litter threshold to be the one to work towards. It became something of a mystery, which we managed to solve last night. The reason is that in 1999 when the Act was put in place under the last Government, the Home Office sent out a circular indicating for local authorities that in most situations five litters should be taken as the threshold to use.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Eustice]

Let me finish the point. Since that time, it would be fair to say—from all the representations made during today’s debate and from the recommendations of the Select Committee—that this is the wrong way to interpret the legislation. Those carrying on a business of breeding and selling dogs should be required to have a licence. I can confirm that we will write to local authorities to provide new clarity through new guidance so that they can interpret the Act in the spirit intended by the House today.

Pet shops are a key item of today’s debate. It is important to recognise that only about 2% of pet shops sell cats and dogs—around 70 in total—and they are already regulated and licensed. They are regulated under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South asked me to clarify whether local authorities have the additional power to place restrictions on which animals can be sold at a licensed pet shop establishment. I can confirm that they do have the power to restrict the number of animals that can be sold. He asked, too, about the issue of ambiguity and contestability in that context. Let me clarify that the intention of the provision is for local authorities to judge on a case-by-case basis whether a particular premise is suitable for a particular animal to be sold. It is not necessary for local authorities to change the law; it is for them to have considerable discretion in making a judgment about whether it is appropriate for certain animals to be sold on the authority’s premises.

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) made the important point that much can be done within the existing regulations. I agree. In January this year, along with the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust and many other charities and organisations, we contributed to some model licence conditions that were made available to all local authorities and were published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. These included 50 pages of recommendations about the sorts of conditions that should be included in a licence for dog-breeding premises. There were strict provisions on the need for social interaction with humans, which should apply for the whole day if the buyers were present all the time.

In addition, in September 2013 we published the model conditions for pet vending, which also set out strict conditions for pet shops about the need for interaction with staff and humans. It is specifically recommended that at least four times a day a human should spend at least 20 minutes with the puppies on sale. We have already put in place important guidance on these issues.

I would like to conclude by saying that we have had a really important debate. I, too, have received many hundreds of letters on the issue and it is clearly of great importance to the country. We have 8 million dogs in this country and we are a nation of animal lovers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. I am still passionate about science and maths, and getting more women into those areas and indeed into agriculture. Getting more high-skilled people to look at agriculture as a career option would provide a fantastic opportunity. We are investing £150 million in the mobile infrastructure project to help address those areas of low mobile coverage at the moment.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her position and very much look forward to her appearing before the Select Committee. From 1 January, all farm payments will have to be digital by default. In Thirsk and Malton, 22% will have no fast-speed coverage, yet that just happens to be where all the farmers are. Will she hold out a hand of friendship to those farmers to ensure that they can access broadband for their farm payments?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will be delighted to work with the hon. Lady and the Select Committee; I am very much looking forward to that. We know that 70% of farmers are already processing their payments online. She is absolutely right that some do not have access to online payments at the moment, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who has responsibility for farming, is making centres available that will be able to advise those farmers and help them get online.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

3. What funds were allocated to church repairs from the Heritage Lottery Fund in each of the past three years.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

Over the past three years, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded just under £75 million to 623 projects to repair listed places of worship in England through the grants for places of worship programme and its predecessor, the repairs grants for places of worship programme, which is operated in partnership with English Heritage.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for that reply. It is, indeed, a large sum of money. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the level at which VAT is set on church repairs and make a plea to reduce it to 5%, which would be perfectly legal?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I remind my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been incredibly generous towards the Church. In May 2012, he and the Government agreed to give £30 million extra a year to the Church so that the listed places of worship grant scheme could enable the equivalent to the VAT bill to be paid on all alterations and repairs to listed buildings. No church should be deterred from undertaking essential repairs and restoration due to fears about the cost of VAT, because they are now covered. The Chancellor made it very clear that he was moving to ease the impact on the churches, in recognition of the massive contribution made by congregations up and down the land to the life of their communities.

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. I welcome the Minister to his place and look forward to his comments.

Looking at the estimates for the forthcoming year, it appears that there will be a 2% increase in the overall budget against last year’s final position in the 2012-13 supplementary estimate. It appears that the £43 million increase in programme spend is largely due to the £124 million increase due to the transfer of the CAP disallowance funding from 2013-14 to 2014-15, in line with a Treasury agreement to allow flexibility in disallowance funding between years. There is also a £38.4 million increase to the Environment Agency’s flood management budget, which is extremely welcome and includes the £20 million announced in the 2014 Budget. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, reassured us that this is new money and that we are not being asked to make savings from, for example, the EA’s Yorkshire and Humber budget to transfer to other parts of the country. That leads to the question, since I understand that the National Audit Office is not in the position to provide figures for the debate, of what the projected figures for disallowance, and any quantifiable fines from the new CAP reform coming into effect next year, will be.

Against that backdrop, the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was extremely pleased to consider the Department’s proposals. When we reported last year, we found much to like. We support the Government’s intention to raise the minimum level of claim threshold to five hectares, and to move money uphill. It is extremely important to state at the outset, however, that that money must go to active farmers and not simply to those who own the land. I would like to go into some detail in that regard, and the Minister cannot help but be aware of our particular concerns.

I would like to record my particular thanks to the previous Minister with responsibility for farming, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was mindful of our concerns about areas where common land is prevalent. The Committee supports the Government’s position that England should adhere, as closely as possible, to the greening measures set out in the direct payments regulation, and not adopt a national certification scheme approach to greening. In our conclusions, we recommend that the Government maintain the 9% rate of transfer from pillar one to pillar two, and only move to 15% in 2017 if they can demonstrate that additional funds are required and that there is a clear benefit from the projects proposed. Clearly, a compromise of 12% is less than 15% and more than 9%. Perhaps the Minister will share the Government’s thinking in that regard, but we are pleased that the farming voice, and that of the Committee, was heard.

The Committee recommends that the Government take steps to ensure that those actively farming receive the direct payments and that those farmers who have responded to the call to diversify are not captured inadvertently on the “negative list” of business types ineligible for CAP funding under pillar one. We recommend that the Government update the commons registers and allow commoners associations to claim on behalf of all those who actively farm commons, so that the commons attract the share of pillar one money intended for them. I am aware of the position in North Yorkshire and Cumbria, and that the register will be updated from October. I believe that in County Durham and other parts the situation might be slightly different. My concern, which I am sure the Committee shares, is that the update to the register cannot take place before 1 January 2015, so a number of eligible claims will be excluded. What will happen to specific claims that are relevant and should be awarded, but may not be in place by 1 January 2015? It would be extremely helpful to put the minds of those farmers at rest.

The Committee supports the continuation of dual use under pillar two, but we think that Natural England must display a lot more rigour in arranging agri-environment contracts to ensure that payments under those schemes go to those who do the work and whose income is forgone. We make a specific recommendation that I hope will be echoed across the House this evening—that Natural England must be in a position to give advice. It should not be seen just as the policeman; it must be there to provide advice to farmers who seek it.

One of the central recommendations—it is certainly close to my heart, given the area that I represent—is that where there is a dispute between landowners, tenants and graziers, they must have access to a dispute resolution mechanism, set up along similar lines to that suggested by the tenancy reform industry group. In this day and age, it is worrying that those whose interests are sometimes ignored or trodden on should not have access to arbitration or a simple, swift dispute resolution mechanism along the lines we propose.

The Select Committee highlights the risks associated with the Government’s plans to develop a new single IT system for CAP funding through which all agencies would be able to administer the CAP. We do not wish to rehearse the grief from previous Administrations, but we are aware of recent history and we do not wish it to be repeated. An undertaking and some assurance from the Minister that that is not intended would be most welcome this evening.

We support the Government’s ambition to encourage and support as many people as possible to apply for CAP funding online, but that approach will simply not be available to some farmers. We received an assurance from a DEFRA Minister in our recent deliberations that a paper-based application process would be retained and that guidance will be provided in paper format in the run-up to the new scheme. It was thus of some concern when the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, in giving evidence to the Committee in April this year, told us that there is absolutely no way that a paper format application can be made. That will send shockwaves through rural areas.

In my own constituency, I had a briefing from NYnet, the county council’s regime that is working in tandem with BT to try to roll out broadband in the area. By 2015-16, however, only 78% of my Thirsk, Malton and Filey constituency will be covered. That means that 22% of Thirsk, Malton and Filey will have no access—I repeat, no access at all—to fast-speed broadband. That 22% is where all the farming communities live, and it means that they will be severely disadvantaged. We are all familiar with those trying to apply online who find either no access or receive internet access that is so slow that all the information that has been entered can be lost just as people are trying to press the send button.

I say to the Minister that it is no comfort to farmers to be told that they should seek a satellite connection, as they simply cannot afford the prohibitive cost. I repeat the Committee’s recommendation to the Government that the BT money that is being rolled out—particularly the element coming from the BBC licence fee and the next round of licensing—should go to those rural communities across England that have the slowest speed and the weakest broadband coverage. We cannot expect the farming community to go digital by default from 1 January, yet have no access to broadband.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I, too, am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the hon. Lady agree that throughout the UK and particularly in isolated rural areas, farmers are being marginalised because of lack of proper access to broadband, and that the Minister should use his good offices to make representations to BT about that problem? That issue was highlighted in our rural communities report. Does the hon. Lady further agree with me—on a compelling point that she made—that there is a need for proper guidance and form filling to be available in paper form?

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank the hon. Lady for her sterling contribution and excellent work on the Select Committee. I agree that this goes to the heart of how applications will be made from 1 January. We need clarification, because we cannot have the Minister saying one thing and the RPA saying another. If, as the RPA assured us, paper forms will not be available to submit, intensive tuition must be made available to those required to go digital from 1 January.

I want to raise one or two more points before putting some questions to the Minister. Another issue that the RPA shared with the Committee during the evidence session in April is that the reality will be less than was first hoped and more complex, even without the known unknowns such as the disallowance or fines. The cost to implement will, according to the RPA, be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes and, possibly, than previously thought. I shall ask the Minister a couple of direct questions about that.

The impact of flooding on farmland is another important issue that cannot be underestimated. Thousands of acres in Yorkshire and the Humber area were under water in 2012-13 and 2013-14, and thousands of acres were under water in Somerset and the south-western parts of Scotland at the time of flood incidents. The impact on the productivity of farming has been severe.

Will the Minister confirm whether farmers will be eligible for parts of the CAP, perhaps under pillar two, and the rural development fund, if not agri-monetary schemes, for storing water on land? How long would it take? Will such storage constitute reservoirs? When will DEFRA be in a position to publish the reservoir safety guidance, for which we have been waiting for some months, if not two years, because it will have a direct bearing on this matter?

Is it a source of disappointment to DEFRA that the CAP reforms have in many respects become more complex and less simple in an already complex system? Is it indeed the case that the CAP schemes are likely to be between 15% and 40% higher than previous schemes, and how has the Department budgeted for that in the estimates? Is the Department seeking to simplify and minimise the administrative cost in the new schemes, even against that backdrop?

Will the Minister respond to a question that has been asked by me and by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)? In April, the RPA told our Committee:

“It is not actually possible to submit by paper to the new scheme, because of the way that it is structured.”

That completely contradicts what Ministers told us in their evidence. I repeat that farmers in areas with no broadband service face considerable problems. Will the Minister assure us that making access to CAP funding digital by default will not cause problems for farmers in areas that lack broadband coverage or significant speeds? Will he also assure us that the new digital support centres, which form an important part of the assisted digital service, will be accessible to all farmers, including hill farmers in relatively remote locations such as mine? Will he confirm that there will be a certain degree of privacy, and that farmers will not be expected to sit in a public place, such as a library, sharing commercially sensitive information with members of the public? The Committee believes that that would not be appropriate.

What makes the Minister think that the United Kingdom’s allocation of pillar two funds, which was much less than had been predicted, will not adversely affect the competitiveness of English farmers, especially in view of the fact that the Government now say that they will modulate 12% and that the proportion will increase to 15% if they believe that to be necessary? What will be the criteria for the move to a 15% rate of transfer from pillar one—direct payments—to support in the final two years of the pillar two rural development programmes? As I have said, we are pleased that the Government listened to the views of the farming community and those of the Committee before reaching their decision, but it would nevertheless be helpful to know what those criteria will be.

In June, the Secretary of State unveiled the details of how the Department would implement the greening rules in England, and referred to a specific problem relating to hedges. He said that the need to validate all claims and map digitally every hedge to EU standards might significantly increase the risk of delayed payments to those who adopted that option. What progress has DEFRA made in talking to banks to ensure that farmers who receive late payments as a consequence of the inclusion of hedges in ecological focus areas will be treated sympathetically? What guidance will it give farmers in regard to how hedges should be measured? I am sure that the Minister will want to allay our concerns, and those of farmers who have contacted us, about any change in the date on which farm payments will be made. What effect will the inclusion of hedges as an option enabling farmers to comply with EFA requirements have on disallowance risk? Will the Minister tell us how the Department will forecast what that risk will be?

During the evidence session, when asked about the level of disallowance that the agency expected to incur under the new CAP, the chief executive of the RPA told the Committee

“we would be doing incredibly well if we can hold disallowance to 2% of future scheme expenditure”,

which is calculated to be in the order of £40 million. From that, it would be reasonable to infer that the UK’s disallowance risk will be increased. We are at a disadvantage this evening because we are debating the subject without the figures from the National Audit Office.

The proposal to move money uphill is obviously welcome, but, as I said earlier, we must ensure that it is those who are actively farming, particularly on common land, who will benefit. DEFRA announced in April that farmers in England who operate within the moorland line would receive approximately £26 more per hectare in direct payments under the new CAP, an increase of about 90% in the moorland rate. That is great news, and a victory for commons, given that 96% of upland commons are above the moorland line. I repeat, however, that we must ensure that the money goes to the commons and the graziers. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to our request for a dispute resolution mechanism. It would be great if he could also assure us that commoners and graziers who wish to claim payments under the new CAP schemes will not be disadvantaged by the poor state of the registers in North Yorkshire, Cumbria, County Durham or elsewhere.

The new environmental management schemes which are open to all upland farmers are obviously welcome, but I hope the Minister will assure us that those farmers will not be left worse off overall by the changes introduced under the new scheme if, as a result of the comprehensive area assessment, the new environmental land management schemes are not open to farmers who are currently operating the uplands entry level stewardship schemes.

I would like to end by highlighting how current payments have worked least well: in respect of rewarding active farmers and graziers on the common land. It is crucial that those who are actively involved in the commons—those active farmers and graziers, or at least those who perform an active part in managing the commons—receive payment timeously, whereas people who do nothing with the commons should not receive a payment where that is not appropriate. Therefore, I urge the Minister to agree that lessons must be learned from how the existing direct payment scheme—the single payment scheme—was implemented in relation to common land, and to ensure that those who till the land on our behalf are indeed the beneficiaries of the new proposals.

With those comments and questions, we await with great interest the Minister’s response.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), on producing a very pertinent report.

On previous occasions I have found the Minister to be a very reasonable, intelligent and empathetic person, and I hope those qualities are going to be on display at the Dispatch Box tonight. I was slightly disappointed when I initiated a debate about the hill farmers in Teesdale that he was not able to respond, but I am going to put the points again in the hope of getting a slightly more sympathetic response than I received previously.

In my constituency, there are a large number of hill farmers who are very much affected by these CAP changes. It is an unusual area, because they are almost entirely tenant farmers farming on common land. They have been farming in the same way for about 500 years, and they have produced a very special way of life and a very special and valuable ecology, so I applaud the remarks in the report and from the Select Committee Chair on common land.

When I went to see the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services, it was particularly concerned because it felt that the European Union had not understood the way commons operate in this country and that the rules at European level were not very sensitive to the needs of English hill farmers for that reason. There was also concern about the change in the payment times in the underlying reforms: payments had previously been made on a six-monthly cycle but people were going to have to wait much longer—sometimes 18 months and in one case as long as nine years. That is a significant problem.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and it allows me to refer to the register, which is out of date. My brother and I have shared a farm in Teesdale, of which the hon. Lady is aware. Does she realise that Teesdale is often cited as the area whose farmers earn the lowest income of any hill farmers in England and Wales?

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Lady is right. Newcastle university estimates that the average income of a farmer in my constituency is £11,000 a year. Many of them are on working tax credits—or were on them under the previous Government, but I am not sure how many of them are still getting the working tax credits.

The Select Committee report is excellent on the major problem such hill farmers face, which is to do with delivery: the totally inadequate service that the farmers receive from the Rural Payments Agency because of the requirement to apply for money online and because the system is constantly collapsing. The Select Committee report states at paragraph 34 that

“farmers can be heavily penalised for a genuine mistake but not appropriately compensated when it is the Rural Payments Agency who is in error.”

What has happened repeatedly in recent months is that the farmers have gone to upload their data and information, and the RPA computer system has been down, necessitating the farmers to go home and come back another day. That is absolutely absurd. Sometimes they have a round trip of 20 miles to access the computer in the UTASS centre in Middleton in Teesdale. When the system is down, they have wasted several hours and have to go back another day in the vain hope it will be up again. I wrote to the Minister about this, and I really think he should not be penalising the farmers when the RPA is at fault.

The next extremely pertinent recommendation from the Select Committee is recommendation 36, which states:

“The IT system remains, however, one of the standout challenges of this round…Given the lessons of the past we question whether this is the right time to be introducing a new IT system.”

How very right the Committee is. It is not just about a new IT system, with all the risks, complexities and problems that a new system always seems to entail in this country; one of my local farmers calculated that because DEFRA’s systems are so complex, and because he has to apply to so many different things and for each system he is meant to have a different authentication, he is supposed to remember 27 different personal identification numbers. This is absurd. This is grotesque. This is Kafkaesque. I find it difficult to remember my bank number and the number to get into the House of Commons, so how can these farmers, whose real job is farming up on the hill, be expected also to run the sort of complex IT system that would make a banker blench?

The Select Committee’s next point, which is absolutely right, was about the importance of encouraging and supporting people to apply online but realising that

“there will be some for whom such an approach is not appropriate. A paper-based application process must be retained”.

That is absolutely essential. Once upon a time, the farmers got the forms through the post, sat at their kitchen table, had a cup of tea, filled the forms out, put the stamp on the envelope, shoved it in the post box and, boom, the whole thing was done. Now that is not possible and the farmers have to drive to the library or the UTASS centre to get help with the uploading.

The whole thing is completely inefficient because, as recommendation 38 indicates, the rural broadband programme has not succeeded so far. We know that 5 million people in this country do not have access to broadband. Until 100% of people have access to broadband, how can it make sense to have a totally online approach and not have a paper-based approach alongside it? In my constituency, 40% of the farmers have no access to rural broadband, so DEFRA and the RPA are taking an absurd approach. It is essential to maintain a paper-based system. It is not reasonable for the Government to make public spending cuts through a digital-by-default process and pass all the burden back to the farmers for delivering the Government’s own administration system. The farmers experience that as oppressive and nerve wracking; it raises anxiety levels to a completely unreasonable pitch, given the significance of what the Government have to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

There were serious administrative difficulties in terms of allowing hedgerows and all landscape features to count towards the environmental focus area, because each one has to be mapped, and we took the decision in the end that hedgerows were so important to many parts of the country that in the first year we should include those hedgerows and endeavour to get the mapping done, and where it could not be done in year one—we have three years to complete the mapping— farmers would self-declare the hedgerows. We do not rule out adding things like stone walls in years two or three, once we have got hedgerows in place. The task of mapping every single individual feature on every farm is an enormous one, however, and we therefore wanted to start first with hedges, before moving on to things such as dry stone walls.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I am going to try to make progress, I am afraid, and I will address many of the points my hon. Friend made if I have time to get to them.

On the agri-environment schemes, we have been clear that 87% of the pillar two budget will go on the new environmental land management scheme. At the higher end, the scheme will be broadly similar to the existing higher level stewardship scheme, but we will also have an additional rate that has more requirements and obligations than the existing entry level stewardship scheme, and which is more proactive and is almost a middle rate. These will be more targeted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire raised concerns that this would effectively lead to white areas or deserts where there would be no such support. Alongside this scheme we intend to deal with the problem of so-called white areas by ensuring that there will be directed options right around the country so that whole areas of the country will not be excluded, and grants to support the planting of woodland, for instance, will be universally available.

Many Members touched on matters relating to the three-crop rule, which will cause difficulty for some farmers—up to around 7%, possibly more. We gave serious consideration to advancing what is called a national certification scheme—a nationally designed scheme that would achieve the same thing—because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said, the three-crop rule does not in itself guarantee crop rotation. Indeed, there are all sorts of anomalies, not least that a cabbage and a cauliflower are regarded as the same crop botanically as far as the EU is concerned, and there will be lots of similar complications to work through. When we looked at the alternatives, however, we found that they were all more complicated and even more difficult to administer than what was already on the table.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the uplift to the single farm payment, which is important. It recognises the value we place on upland and moorland farmers, not just as custodians of the countryside, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned, but as food producers. We are, therefore, equalising the basic payment for upland farmers and lowland farmers, and we will almost double the rate for moorland farmers to about €70 per hectare.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a number of issues, the first of which related to commons. We understand the concerns about the commons register, which has always been the starting point for the mapping of commons. There are disallowance risks in departing too far from the system we have had in place to date, but I can confirm that in addition to starting with that existing commons register, the RPA will utilise other information available to it, such as aerial photography, to help ensure that those who are entitled to claim on common land can.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the issue of disallowance, and I can confirm that we have set aside a figure of 2% to plan for that. It is our aspiration to get to zero disallowance, but the way in which the disallowance scheme works is incredibly complicated and convoluted. Frequently, the disallowance we get is through no fault of our own; it is often because the European Commission does not understand its own rules, and we can get into very protracted arguments. For instance, the fruit and veg scheme has been notorious as a cause of disallowance. The system is very complicated and I do not think we will ever be able to eliminate disallowance altogether.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, have highlighted the issue of the modulation rate—the inter-pillar transfer. We have made it clear that we will modulate at 12% initially and have a review in 2016. She asked what the criteria for that will be. There are two basic criteria, the first of which is whether there is sufficient demand for those agri-environment schemes to warrant an increase in that budget. That links to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). The second is an assessment of the impact on the competitiveness of British agriculture.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), have raised concerns about the new IT system. The existing RPA computer system is simply not fit for purpose and we need a new system. The new common agricultural policy is far more complicated, and there are coefficients attached to some environmental focus areas. Somebody growing peas or beans will find that that counts for only 0.7% towards their EFA—0.7% of the area declared—whereas for hedges there is a coefficient of up to 10 times the area of the hedge. The idea that we could do this by drawing things on maps with pencil, as we do under the existing system, and sending that in to the RPA is simply not credible. We therefore believe that to cope with the new system we have to have a digital by default approach and to have everyone adding their data by computer, because that will be simpler.

I completely understand the point that many hon. Members have made about broadband access. We are investing £500 million through BDUK—Broadband Delivery UK—and a further £250 million in phase 2. We have a third fund of £10 million to pilot creative ideas for those really hard-to-reach areas. In addition, we will have an assisted digital package. We will send paper guidance to every farmer in year 1, so although they will not have a paper application form, they will have paper guidance. That guidance will include detailed information on our digital offer. The crucial thing for those lacking the computer literacy to complete their form online or those who have no broadband access is that we will be setting up a number of digital service centres right around the country, particularly targeted at those areas where there is a problem. Farmers will, thus, be able physically to take their information into an office, which will have privacy and be discreet, and work with an RPA agent to enter that information on the system. That is the right thing for everyone. It is right for those farmers, because it removes the risk of them getting penalties and disallowance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I very much join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, who only a few months ago came to see me to promote the British apple industry and was still playing a most constructive part. I also pay tribute to the role the right hon. Gentleman played when he was the senior Minister in charge at the end of the MacSharry period, when some serious reforms, from which we are currently benefiting, were pushed through. It is disappointing that that trajectory has not been continued. It is absolutely our intention to report to the Commission on time, on 1 August. I made a written statement earlier this week and I made further announcements on greening at the cereals conference yesterday.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, a former constituent and a very good friend to the farming industry. Mindful of my historic interest in this field, which is on the register, does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that the Commons Act 2006 register is woefully inaccurate and out of date, which means that those eligible for claims will be unable to make them, and that we will not have the paperless claims the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was promised when taking evidence?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. She is right to raise some of the technical issues that have been thrown up. It is very much our intention that the reform should be introduced in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for applicants to understand, and as easy as possible for the Rural Payments Agency to pay out, and we are pleased to see a significant number of applications by the digital method.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The hon. Lady is correct: this is quite a challenge, but I think one needs to recognise that several pots of money are available. There is the very welcome £20 million the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently awarded to cathedrals to keep for immediate repairs; the Heritage Lottery Fund has put aside £25 million a year for necessary repairs; the listed places of worship scheme totals £42 million a year; and of course we have to be grateful to the wider public, who raise approximately £115 million each year to spend on repairs to their parish church buildings. The hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesperson for her party on culture, media and sport, and I am always willing to discuss with her other ways in which she thinks further funds can be found.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Thousands of small parish churches are in desperate need of urgent repairs to heating, lighting and electrical systems, as well as roof repairs. How much or what proportion of the amounts that my right hon. Friend just mentioned relate to VAT due on those repairs?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend may recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made very generous provision of, if I recall correctly, £25 million to help to offset VAT costs on church repairs, so there is no reason why churches should be deterred from carrying out repairs and restoration by concerns about VAT bills.

Water Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Minister for his kind comments?

As it is some time since the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, I want briefly to refresh the memories of Members on it. It includes many important reforms that attempt to build on three important reviews taken forward by the previous Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability, and the Cave review on competition.

Throughout the Bill’s long passage through Parliament the Opposition have been supportive. In the Commons we voted for it on Second Reading and on Third Reading. In the other place, although we raised legitimate concerns and challenged the Government, again we remained broadly supportive of the Bill. We have backed measures to increase competition. We have supported measures that will provide a statutory basis for agreement on flood reinsurance, providing affordable insurance to households who would have otherwise not been covered. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) pointed out on Third Reading, there still remains even now a major hole at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the Government’s water policy: the absence of any serious attempt to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets, which is adding to the cost of living crisis.

Unfortunately, the Government have failed to back a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether to offer a social tariff and set the criteria for eligibility. Last year the industry made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, of which they returned £1.8 billion to shareholders, yet fewer than 25,000 people are eligible to benefit from social tariffs offered by just three water companies. In many ways, therefore, the Bill represents a missed opportunity and remains seriously flawed, despite its being improved by amendments made in the other place.

Although we will not vote against any of the first group of amendments, that does not mean that we believe that the Bill could not have been made stronger and more effective through the adoption of our amendments. We are where we are, as they say. While, as the Minister pointed out, most amendments in the group present a series of technical and drafting changes, amendments 32 and 33, amendments 49 to 52 and amendments 53 to 64 make significant changes to the Bill that was debated in the Commons.

Amendments 32 and 33, which were originally introduced in Committee by Lord Grantchester, give a new role to the Consumer Council for Water. They will require Ofwat to issue rules that will mean that the CCW must be consulted by water and sewerage undertakers on all charges schemes. That will allow the CCW to play a role at an early stage in the charges process and will enable it to flag up problems, before the relevant bills start arriving on customers’ doorsteps and further problems occur. For example, as Lord Grantchester pointed out in Committee, the CCW had previously challenged the charging plans of some companies that restricted half-yearly payment options for those on direct debit payments. Some customers prefer to pay on a half-yearly basis, as it better enables them to manage their money.

Although we welcome the amendments, which we promoted in the other place, it is a pity that the Government have not gone further by accepting our argument that we need to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets. As I said, the Government could have backed our plans for a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether or not to offer a social tariff, with no minimum standards in place to ensure fair and effective affordability measures.

Amendments 49 and 50 introduce parliamentary scrutiny for any regulations that the Secretary of State may deem fit to introduce under clauses 37 and 39. The amendments, which were introduced at a very late stage—I think on Third Reading in the Lords—mean that the affirmative procedure will now apply on the first exercise of those powers. That is quite right, especially given the importance of the regulations in question. It is a pity, however, that the Government have been forced into this position and have had to be pushed into introducing the amendments by Labour Members and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. That Committee made firm recommendations in this regard, and has rightly argued that the Secretary of State would have enjoyed so-called Henry VIII powers over many parts of the Act if the Bill had remained unamended, so Parliament is right to assert its right to scrutinise the relevant regulations as and when they see the light of day.

Amendments 53 to 64 deal with retail exit. I want to put it on the record that we have also backed measures in the Bill that increase competition to support businesses that wish to enter the retail market for non-domestic consumers. The measures are similar to those that have been a success north of the border; Scotland became the first country in the world to introduce competition to the non-domestic water market in 2008. We find it odd, however, that the Government have repeatedly dragged their feet in relation to allowing such businesses to exit this market. Without our persistence, which was shared by peers on the Government Benches, the Government’s original proposals would not create a market at all.

Retail exit enjoys a great deal of support, including from Ofwat, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and some of the major water companies. Indeed, in Committee, amendments introduced by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), were not supported by the Government. In the other place, Lord Whitty commented that there was bemusement in all parts of the House as to why the Government were so resistant to the concept of exit in the new retail market, and introduced an amendment that would have allowed it. His arguments were not, however, supported by the Government, who gave the lame reason that such a measure would cause investor insecurity. On Report, Lord Moynihan introduced an amendment that would have gained our support, but he withdrew it on advice that the Government would introduce an amendment on Third Reading. Although we welcome the Government’s late conversion, we have to wonder why they resisted such a measure during most of the Bill’s progress through this House and the other place. Surely it would have been more appropriate if the amendments had been brought forward earlier, to allow adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, however, we are where we are.

It is also right that, when and if regulations are brought forward by the Secretary of State, they will be laid before both Houses under the super-affirmative procedure. I pay tribute again to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in highlighting the need for that even at the 11th hour of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

First, I welcome the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new position, and pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I understand that they have performed a job swap. The hon. Gentleman has made a big contribution to this debate and, in the past, to the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I can only apologise to both Front-Bench teams that there are not more colleagues from the Committee here today. The reason for that is that we are undertaking a farm visit this afternoon. I had to give my excuses and will be joining colleagues later for the completion of the visit today and tomorrow. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and welcome both the outbreak of common sense in the other place and in the Department and a very welcome and worthwhile amendment.

I shall briefly go over the deliberations in the Select Committee and the earlier proceedings in this place. In our report on the draft Water Bill, the Committee strongly recommended that the Bill should include provisions to enable incumbent companies to exit the retail market voluntarily. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned, the Committee tabled a new clause in my name on Report to provide for retail exit. Also, during the course of the inquiry both regulators—Ofwat and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—the incumbent companies and new entrants were united in calling for the Bill to include an exit route. WICS provided a welcome and helpful explanatory note, and I hope the amendment it proposed during the Commons stages of the Bill will bear fruit today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

First, may I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Primarolo? I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for their contributions today, and the latter for the contribution she has made as Chair of the Select Committee, both throughout this process and long before any Bill was formally considered in both Houses.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised a number of issues and returned to the issue of affordability. The Government have made it clear that the best thing we can do on affordability is keep bills low for everybody by having a robust regulator and setting out to that regulator the policy framework to which we aspire in order for things to happen. The regulator has taken good action to explore with companies what they can do to keep bills lower; that is the trend we are seeing into the next price review period, with some companies bringing it forward into the current period as well, to the benefit of all consumers. Of course, this Government took action to deal with the acute situation in the south-west, where bills were much higher than everywhere else in the country. The hon. Lady rightly points out the contribution that social tariffs can make and the fact that three companies have introduced them. Other companies are bringing them forward in the next year or so, following consultation with their customer base. It is important that that consultation takes place, because introducing social tariffs involves a funding mechanism.

The Opposition have talked of a national scheme, but they did not introduce one when they were in government. We can continue to debate that, but my concerns with such a scheme, and those of the Government, are that the situation in each water company area is different. Therefore, one scheme mandated across the whole area will have different impacts on different customer groups across those water company areas and may have perverse impacts on the bills of some, given the different demographics and mix of bill payers. We are not convinced of that approach, but I welcome the Opposition’s support for social tariffs where they have been introduced.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, as did the Chair of the Select Committee. We have listened to concerns and examined the use of the affirmative procedure where necessary. When we get into the realms of the super-affirmative procedure I bow to those with more experience of the range of options at the House’s disposal and how such a procedure might be used. We feel that the affirmative procedure is the correct one to take things forward, but we very much welcome the work done by the relevant Committee in another place to make suggestions on how to ensure that Members of both Houses, and those observing our deliberations externally, will have confidence that we have got things right.

I spoke earlier about the position on retail exits, but there are a couple of further things to say in response to the two speeches we have just heard. First, the Government’s position has never been that such exits should never happen and that we would never make proposals for them. We said at earlier stages that we had concerns, given the range of opinions held across the industry. Both regulators have supported such provisions throughout, whereas the Consumer Council for Water had a much more nuanced position. Some companies were very concerned about it, as were some investors, particularly with regard to pressure for the forced separation of companies. We know that investors would be concerned about that, and we want to see continuing investment in improving resilience, which is a key feature of where we are going with our programme. We are very concerned about the position of household customers, who will not have the options under this Bill that non-household customers have.

With that in mind, we have introduced amendments that take heed of arguments made by Opposition and Government Members, as well as people outside the House, and which put in place safeguards that make sure that all customers are protected throughout any process of change. There will be further consultation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said, which is crucial, and the question of forced separation, for example, can be addressed. On that basis, the amendments introduced by the Government allow us to move forward on the potential for retail exit in a measured way. That is the difference between the earlier debates on the Bill and where we are now. I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for her contribution, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Committee for the work that they have done.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but would he clarify the enhanced affirmative procedure?

[Dan Rogerson]

When the House considers options on the enhanced affirmative procedure there is a range of processes that can be used, but we believe that the affirmative procedure is the correct one with regard to most of the changes that we have discussed this afternoon. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the discussion on this group of amendments. I hope that the House approves the amendments and that we can agree the changes made in another place.

Lords amendment 15 agreed to.

Lords amendments 16 to 30, 32, 33, 43 to 64, 101 to 103, 107 to 147 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 142.

Clause 8

Bulk supply of water by water undertakers

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for introducing the second group of amendments, which relate to some very important provisions in the Bill.

Lords amendments 1 to 14 are largely drafting amendments, but they include some important additions to the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 detail the efficient use of water resources and take into account the effect on the environment of water use, with particular reference to what constitutes a bulk supply agreement with water undertakers, and the effect of such agreements on the environment. Lords amendments 1 to 14 and Lords amendment 31 give a greater role, as the Minister acknowledged, to the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales with regard to the effects on the environment of bulk supply agreements. We welcome the strengthening of the role of these two bodies to provide environmental expertise and to prevent bulk supply agreements from damaging the environment.

Amendments 34 to 42 relate to social and environmental safeguards more generally, and amendment 38 in particular requires that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers “must” have regard to social and environmental matters when compiling their statements to Ofwat, thereby strengthening the requirement in the Bill. The change from “may” to “must” have regard is a major concession by the Government. Given the importance of securing environmental safeguards at the heart of all aspects of water management, one can say only that it is surprising that the Government did not make that amendment of their own volition, rather than as a result of facing pressure from Members of both Houses on the point.

It is important to put on the record our deep disappointment that the Government have not gone further and recognised the need to make the Bill stronger and more effective by making sustainable development a primary duty for the regulator, as is the case with other regulators. We believe that resilience and the associated term that the Government use here—“the efficient use of water”—are not good enough. In the water White Paper, the Government said that they would carefully consider the case for that, and many environmental organisations are concerned that Ofwat does not have the necessary powers to prevent environmental damage and damaging water exploitation. That is particularly important in the light of greater competition, where companies will be looking to maximise efficiency however they can. Without a tough regulatory duty, that could come at the expense of the environment. My question to the Minister about the Government’s failure to grasp the opportunity presented by the Bill to strengthen regulation in this regard is this: why have they failed to respond to this vital issue in a robust manner and safeguard our environment?

On water abstraction, the Government’s White Paper, “Water for Life”, published in 2011, set out the case for a comprehensive reform of abstraction licences, suggesting that the current licensing system was outdated and in need of urgent reform to deal with increasing pressure on water resources—an issue with which we are all now familiar. Pressures develop because of population change and climate change. The Government tabled an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report on abstraction reform within five years. That is in the context, however, of the Government’s decision to allow the introduction of greater competition in the upstream market to take effect before reform of the abstraction regime.

We, along with leading environmental experts, are concerned that without comprehensive abstraction reform, upstream competition could incentivise existing abstraction licence holders to sell their water to water companies, even when the catchment is already over-abstracted or over-licensed. In response, the Government have said that the Environment Agency is adequately placed to review and/or change abstraction licences. We do not agree with that assessment.

In his response to their lordships’ amendments, Lord De Mauley said:

“The Environment Agency will soon use its powers to revoke or vary abstraction licences without compensation where they are causing serious damage to the environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 163.]

However, following budget cuts, the Environment Agency has cut 600 staff since 2010, so surely the Minister must concede that the Environment Agency will now have less capacity effectively to discharge its duties in that respect. What will be the priority for this smaller, rather emaciated, Environment Agency—flood defence schemes or attention to abstraction reform? Given its much reduced resource, is the Minister confident that the Environment Agency can manage all its duties effectively?

Under the new market conditions created by the upstream market reforms in the Bill, more water could be abstracted from water courses than is sustainable or suitable for local ecosystems. We support the amendment for upstream market reforms to allow new water undertakers into the market, but we still think it wise for the Government to deliver progress on abstraction reform, running concurrently.

We asked the Government to bring forward reformed abstraction licences on the same day as the upstream reform measures in the Water Bill come into effect, but they have unfortunately neglected to do so. Instead, under amendments 65 and 104, the Secretary of State is required to produce a report on progress made on water abstraction reform within five years of the Bill being passed, as the Minister indicated. We do not oppose that amendment because it is better than nothing, but it is unsatisfactory overall, because unsustainable water abstraction could continue for some time after the Bill has been passed—before DEFRA effectively addresses the issue.

In conclusion, why are the Government reluctant to commit to ensuring that the abstraction reforms run concurrently with the upstream marketing reforms? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer on that point.

[Miss McIntosh]

I shall make just a few comments. Over the last three years, events in Yorkshire have certainly shown the unpredictability of the weather, which can swing from a real flood to a virtual drought within a matter of weeks. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), whom I see in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, and my hon. Friend the Minister sat in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when we debated these issues—both at the pre-scrutiny stage and when the amendments to the Bill were tabled. It was a constant theme of the Select Committee to call for the implementation of abstraction reform—certainly by 2022. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that this will happen within five years of the Act being passed, whereas we asked for it within seven years. It looks as if we are on course.

Personally, I would have made the case to include abstraction reform within the context of the Bill. I hope this does not come home to roost in the intervening five, six or seven-year period, but given the climatic changes and swings in weather patterns that we have seen, I hope we do not rue the day that we failed to include abstraction reform in the Bill. I understand that there was no appetite for it and that the Department felt, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, that doing so would have brought an inevitable delay to the Bill.

The reason abstraction reform should be included, and the reason I welcome this group of Lords amendments, is that the current system of managing abstraction of water from rivers and aquifers was introduced in the 1960s and is woefully out of date. It does not effectively address the severity of pressures on water resources due to increasing demands from a growing population and an increasingly varied climate. The Environment Agency has mentioned that in a number of areas, including my own, it cannot, for understandable reasons, afford the upkeep of existing flood defence banks. Farm land in those areas will be prone to future floods.

Water from rivers and aquifers has many uses, and there is a fine balance between industrial and non-industrial use. I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which I had the privilege of representing as an MEP for 10 years, to see the difficulties that many industrial users such as jam manufacturers and others experienced in a climate that they were not used to. Essex has on occasions been compared to Egypt in respect of the amount of water fall that it receives. The weakness in the current system means that it could start to constrain economic growth, reduce the resilience of the water supply and lead to environmental damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith]

As the Minister has explained, this group of amendments relate, to the provisions in the Bill on flood reinsurance. Again, we will support the amendments, which we believe have materialised primarily because of pressure from a wide range of Members in the other place and from the official Opposition. However, we believe that more could have been done.

In many ways, this is yet another example of a missed opportunity to produce effective and robust legislation. We support the Flood Re scheme and believe that it is important that affordable cover is made available for those who are struggling and are at greatest risk from future floods. It is also important that the policy should be underpinned by the principle of minimal impact on wider bill payers, so it is important that the levy agreed between the Government and the industry remains equivalent to about £10.50 for each UK household with both buildings and contents insurance in place.

We also welcome the fact that Flood Re is designed to be progressive, with the benefits targeted on lower income households, but we are disappointed that the Government could not support Labour’s amendment in the other place, which would have at least enabled parliamentarians to shine a light on the potential problems created by the arrangements for leasehold and tenanted properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, there are complicated qualifying or excluding conditions surrounding the ownership and occupation rules under the scheme.

The rules could also have an impact on the private rented market, as there is a fear that single property landlords, for instance, might find that their exclusion from the scheme means that the cost of insurance eats away at their capacity to invest in their properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, the consequence could be increasing levels of dilapidated housing stock with potential impacts at a neighbourhood level. The only option that might be open to the landlord to raise funds for improvements could be to raise rents or the service charge, so tenants might suffer indirectly as a consequence of being excluded from the Flood Re scheme. The risk is clear: the number of new landlords prepared to invest and buy property will diminish in the areas that are affected. Given the housing crisis facing the country, that is not a welcome prospect.

Although we recognise that the actuarial calculations for Flood Re are delicate and depend on various assumptions, we feel it is important that Parliament understand, the position. Labour’s amendment would address that by ensuring that a report was made available so that Parliament could see for itself the consequences of including or excluding different combinations of property before taking the Flood Re scheme forward via statutory instrument.

We also feel that the Government have failed to grasp the importance of using reliable scientific evidence on the potential impact of climate change when making estimates of the current and projected number of properties eligible for inclusion in the Flood Re scheme. That is perhaps not surprising, given that the Secretary of State has been known before now to deny the reality of climate change, but the threat, as most of us agree, is real and we need to be sure that the scheme will operate effectively within its 25-year span and will be adaptable to weather conditions resulting from climate change. If they are to adapt effectively, it is crucial that households can access information that identifies current and projected estimates of the number of people eligible for the scheme.

It is entirely sensible that we should seek the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to inform as accurately as possible our calculations on the challenges that the Flood Re scheme will face over time. Only then can households truly take the necessary action to minimise risk. The Government have tabled amendments providing information on transitioning from Flood Re to risk-reflective pricing, which Labour has been arguing for throughout the passage of the Bill.

Flood Re cannot operate on a static basis. It needs to respond to changing weather patterns, and we continue to believe that the Secretary of State should take advice from a credible expert source. Lord Krebs, chair of the adaptation sub-committee, has indicated that he would be willing to take on that role. However, our amendments, along with others on access to the national database and the right to appeal, were not accepted by the Government. We think that is short-sighted, but we support the amendments in this group and will continue to engage positively on this important issue.

[Miss McIntosh]

When we took evidence on the insurance aspects of the Bill during the Select Committee’s scrutiny stages, we were told that the package on Flood Re stood as a whole and that we could not consider any exceptions—not small businesses or leaseholders, or anything else, and certainly not band H. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will permit me a wry smile as I see that some of those exceptions have been included.

I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify the position on leaseholders. I—like many others, I am sure—have been contacted by constituents asking me to consider the implications for an owner who buys a leasehold property, as my constituents did in their block of flats. Apparently, the cost under Flood Re of the flood insurance alone will run to thousands of pounds, which they cannot afford and which they believe will affect their ability to resell those properties. I would be grateful for an explanation of where we are on that.

I understand that my noble Friend Lord de Mauley confirmed in the other place that domestic contents policies will be available to all under Flood Re, regardless of whether the properties are leasehold or freehold, rented or owned-occupied, except for properties in band H and those built since 1 January 2009. I have seen on many of my flood visits around the country that tenants on low incomes are often the first not to take out an insurance policy for their contents. The cost is therefore greater when they have to replace many of their possessions, some of which are of course priceless and cannot be replaced. Will domestic contents policies indeed be available to all?

Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm the intention behind the exception for band H properties? It seems bizarre. We are going to exclude from Flood Re leaseholders who are perhaps on lower incomes and often in smaller, more affordable properties, but people in band H tend to be wealthier and in a better position to afford insurance. I want to understand the situation so I can explain to my constituents why these exceptions have been considered.

I know that the date of 1 January 2009 was taken as the benchmark, but did the Department ever look closely at why that was a good date to choose? With hindsight, should it perhaps have been 1 January 2012 or 1 January 2013, when we first began closely to scrutinise these issues through the proposals from the Department and the work of the Select Committee and others in this place?

It would also be helpful to understand the position for small businesses, particularly farms. If the farmhouse itself has been flooded, will that be covered in the provisions of Flood Re?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, across a broad range of issues, and welcome their questions.

All three Members who spoke mentioned leaseholders. Let me put on record again the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). All contents policies would be eligible for Flood Re, whether leasehold, freehold, rented or owner-occupied, provided that the properties were built before 1 January 2009 and are in council tax bands A to G. Leasehold houses will also be within the scope of Flood Re in terms of buildings insurance, provided that the leaseholder lives in the property and purchased the buildings insurance in their own name. Flats will be eligible provided that there are no more than three flats in the building and that the freeholder, or one of those with a share of the freehold, lives in the building and takes out the cover.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend says that the scheme applies if there are no more than three flats in the building. Where we lived—the current residents now have the problem—there could be 12, 16 or 20 properties. These are small properties that tend to be more affordable and occupied by those with a mortgage. Residents have put it to me that the increases are unaffordable already. Insurance companies are extracting those increases from them when they renew their insurance policies in an area that they know has already been flooded at ground-floor level because of the properties’ proximity to the river. I urge the Government to revisit this, because it is not acceptable. I do not want to pander to the Opposition’s argument about the standard cost of living, because that would be inappropriate, but I do believe that the Government should make the insurance affordable by reducing the cost. They should take out the below-three number because they have to reflect what working families are living in.

[Dan Rogerson]

We believe that a significant proportion of the leasehold sector will fall within the scope of Flood Re if the properties are at the highest levels of flood risk. I should emphasise, however, that we expect that most properties will not need to be in Flood Re and will find better prices through normal routes. We have been assured that there is no evidence of a systemic problem with freeholders being unable to obtain insurance for their leasehold properties. Specifically, feedback from members of the Association of British Insurers, representing over 60% of the market, including specialist commercial property insurers, showed no expectation of a widespread issue in an open market. As for the small businesses that are outside the scope of Flood Re, we and the ABI will monitor the market over time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

Will my hon. Friend hark back to the evidence the Select Committee heard from the insurance industry during pre-legislative scrutiny? We were told categorically that, if there is a one-in-200-year event, the pot into which the subsidy will be paid, on which we all agree, will not be sufficient to pay out the resources, and it is generally accepted by the insurance industry that the Government will step in. Perhaps that is a different phrase from the one that my hon. Friend might use, but it means that the buck stops with the Government.

[Dan Rogerson]

We have been absolutely clear that, in such an event, the resources from the Flood Re pot would be significant and the Government would be involved in discussions about how that money would be used to help the people affected.

Although we have been focusing on Flood Re, my hon. Friend also asked about de-averaging. I want to use this opportunity to put on the record the fact that the Government’s charging principles on de-averaging are unambiguous. Ofwat must not allow de-averaging that is harmful to customers, particularly rural customers. Our charging guidance will follow soon. I am happy to commit, as I have before, to making it plain in that document that there must be strong, definitive boundaries for the scope of any de-averaging and that households in particular must be protected.

We should not, however, be over-simplistic. There is no doubt that there are areas where better cost reflectivity could have substantial benefits for the environment and the resilience of our water supplies. It must be right that the new upstream markets should reflect the environmental costs of supply and that there are economic incentives for business users that use large volumes of water.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole asked about the operation of current Government grant schemes. It might not be appropriate to go into that in detail now, but I would be happy to respond to correspondence from him on the specifics of how the scheme in his area is working.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to our debates on the Bill today and at various other stages in this and another place. I hope that the House will agree with their lordships’ amendments.

Lords amendment 67 agreed to.

Lords amendments 68 to 100 and 105 and 106 agreed to.

Immigration Bill (Money) (No. 2)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Immigration Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a statutory body or recognised charitable organisation.—(James Brokenshire.)

Immigration Bill (Programme) (No. 2.)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Immigration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22 October 2013 (Immigration Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Bovine TB

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The position is very simple. The pilots were set up last year. The hon. Lady asked about the roll-out of our programme. We made clear that we would learn lessons: the IEP report contained some very helpful advice, and we will adopt it. We are acting responsibly by maintaining the two existing cull areas. The hon. Lady mentioned the risk of increasing disease. My chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, has stated emphatically that ending culling in the two existing areas would greatly increase the risk of the disease, and his very strong scientific advice is that it should continue.

As for Wales, I am delighted that there has been a reduction in the disease there. According to the farmers in Wales to whom I have spoken, it may be due to the spike that occurred when annual testing was introduced recently. Given that the vaccination trial has only been taking place for two years in 1.5% of the land in Wales, to attribute it to vaccination is laughable.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of humaneness. The IEP report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died virtually instantly. However, there are clear lessons to be learned on how we can improve humaneness, which we are happy to adopt.

The hon. Lady mentioned the number culled last year. I remind her that during the first year of the randomised badger culling trial that took place under the Government she supported, only 32%, 37% and 39% respectively were culled in three of the trial areas, but in those areas the culls did contribute to disease reduction later on.

The hon. Lady also mentioned cost. We are heading for a bill of £1 billion. We simply must address the disease in cattle and in wildlife, as has happened in every other country to which I referred in my statement. [Interruption.] I have already touched on the subject of Wales and vaccination, but I repeat for the benefit of Opposition Front Benchers who are chuntering from a sedentary position that it is not credible to attribute the reduction in Wales to a two-year vaccination programme that took place in 1.5% of the geographical area of Wales.

The hon. Lady came up with a few ideas, and I am delighted to say that we are in agreement on all of them. On badger vaccination, I have announced that we want to establish a buffer zone at the edges of the worst affected areas, because treating healthy badgers with the current badger vaccine—however difficult it is to deploy, given that a third of badgers are trap-shy—may help to build up a buffer zone, and that is worth doing. Sadly, injecting diseased badgers in the hot-spot areas with cattle vaccine will not reduce the incidence of the disease. I think that we agree on that.

The hon. Lady mentioned risk-based trading in connection with for cattle measures. We have already introduced that. I was very clear about this in my statement. If she looks at the strategy, she will see there are considerable new measures there, which are much stricter on cattle risk-based trading. It would be good if the hon. Lady went through our response to the independent panel so she sees that we are adopting its proposals, and went through our strategy, which shows that we are looking to bring in a whole range of tools. She should not just focus on culling of diseased badgers, although that is an important part, as we are bringing in a whole range of other measures, and down the road, as I made clear in the statement, I really do want to get to the position where we are leading the world on developing a cattle vaccine and where, above all, we can get better diagnostic techniques—possibly DNA systems—which can diagnose disease in cattle and in badgers.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome the strategy and the fact that the Government are going to implement the panel recommendations. The public will be very alarmed that TB is now spreading through pets, and I hope the Secretary of State can address that. I urge him to give the House an assurance on the date when the field trials will take place and the timetable for the legislative changes, and will he also look favourably on the sterilisation programme which is being developed in my constituency?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for her questions. On the development of cattle vaccine, which I think she was asking about, we do not have an immediate timetable when we can start. These are complex, difficult trials and we need to work out, working closely with the European Commission, how we bring them in in practical terms. A major issue is what we do with the animals that may have been treated, because we have to decide whether they can go for human consumption or not.

Elliott Review and Food Crime

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr McCrea, and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing the debate, which is timely, as we await Professor Elliott’s final report. I welcome the Minister and the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and I thank the Minister for his well-spent time on the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the contribution he made to its reports.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet was right to focus on what is a new aspect of the area of crime we are discussing, and we should consider why there have not been any prosecutions to date. The Select Committee first reported in March 2012 on what we were told was a temporary ban on desinewed meat, which regrettably led to a loss of jobs at Newby Foods in my constituency and, I understand, at Moy Park in Northern Ireland. We concluded at the time that there was potential for adulteration and mislabelling, and the substitution of cheaper cuts of desinewed meat. It is a pity that our conclusions and the alarm bell that was rung were not responded to then.

[Laura Sandys]

Those early warning signs are the important issue for the Government. We need to ensure that when such things are seen to happen, they will trigger action from the FSA or DEFRA, which should work out the possible scenarios. Prices will be increasingly squeezed, and that will become more of an issue.

[Miss McIntosh]

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, scrutiny of the issues is split between more than one Department—the Department of Health and DEFRA in the present case. What is particularly galling is that desinewed meat is still produced from non-ruminants as Baader meat in other European member states. There should be the same rule throughout the European Union.

There have been several reports, including the Select Committee report to which the Minister contributed, as well as the Troop review, the National Audit Office review, an internal FSA review and now the Elliott review. We need definitive action now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, there was a remarkable short-term boost for local butchers and farm shops, and I hope that that will last.

To address the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, people may eat cheaply by buying a roast and eating it in various forms during the course of the week. Frozen and processed foods, the real villains of the piece in food adulteration, are more expensive than buying fresh meat from the local butcher.

The interim Elliott review was so important because it looked at and pulled out the various conclusions of Select Committee and other earlier reports, bringing them all together and, in particular, highlighting issues such as slabs of meat in cold storage or the transporting of food over long distances, which we now know were often the cause of the problem, but had not previously been focused on. In responding, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will update us on where we are with labelling. In response to the Select Committee’s fifth report, on food contamination, the Government state:

“New labelling rules have just been agreed by the European Union and the Government must meet its legal obligations on implementation of these EU labelling regulations.”

That poses a particular problem for the Malton bacon factory, because what we are trying to do with one meat product, beef, perversely has implications for other products, such as pork. It would be helpful if the Minister updated us.

On the call for shorter supply chains, the complacency in the evidence that we heard in Committee was breathtaking. The supply chains were taken as read; they were not visited—not once every three months, not once every year and not even once in three years. We need reassurance from the supermarkets and the bigger food retail chains that that is now happening. Traceability and labelling go to the core of the issue: we must learn the lessons from BSE and keep our markets open. The European Union is, after all, our largest market for fresh meat, frozen food and processed food products.

The Elliott review is also important for highlighting the role of food testing, as commented on by the hon. Member for Bristol East and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. The reduction in the number of food analysts and the closure of food laboratories is causing great concern throughout the farming community and in the profession.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Lady is making a good contribution. May I take her one step back? She made a point about the importance of the industry’s reputation domestically, but we also need to get things right because, with credit to the Government, work on the export market is very much predicated on the strong reputation of UK meat produce. We need to get that right, because it will drive our export market. If we get it wrong, the corollary is that we could be sacrificing some great balance-of-payments input for this country.

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman—I might dare to call him my hon. Friend—makes a powerful point. The key to everything is that there was nothing unsafe: it was fraud, adulteration and mislabelling. We may pride ourselves on the safety of food production from farm to plate. The long supply chain was the villain of the piece.

There is now more testing than ever, as the Committee has said. There had probably been a reduction in testing before, and the evidence we heard was that certain local authorities, which shall remain nameless, had not done any testing for a number of years. That is simply not on. Where retailers are testing, it is extremely important that they share the results with the Food Standards Agency and post them on their website, so that the consumer knows what is safe. We await the final report from Professor Elliott with great interest.

[Laura Sandys]

That is an important point about communicating with the consumer. If product has not met the required standard or there has been an infraction of trading standards, I would like to see retailers and suppliers across the board having that on their websites, telling consumers that there has been fraud or a problem.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made and I am grateful for it.

Turning to food crime and why there have been no prosecutions, the matter is about frozen and processed food more than fresh food. Questions have to be asked. Action on fraud is well led by City of London police, but in that instance—perhaps the Minister will respond—was it the correct body? We have to ask why there were no prosecutions. The Secretary of State at the time, and a previous Agriculture Minister, said that those who had perpetrated the crimes would be brought to justice and feel the full force of the law. Why therefore have there been no prosecutions? We need to bring those people to book.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet mentioned the Dutch scenario, but I am taken with the Danish model—I declare an interest, because I am half Danish—of flying food squads descending on food producers, which has something to commend it. Professor Elliott may report more on that.

Leadership from the FSA is crucial, and the Select Committee asked questions about the scrutiny of food production, with the Government’s 2010 changes in particular potentially clouding the issue. I commend the acting FSA chairman, Tim Bennett, for his work in bringing stability to the area, but the fact that the vacancy has been left open for possibly more than a year raises issues. I urge the Government to speed up the process, because we need a permanent head of the FSA in place—someone who will be the front person should there be further issues, and who will implement the final conclusions of the Elliott report and the action for which the Government will undoubtedly call.

A worrying aspect is the split responsibility between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Health. In the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we certainly expected to be doing the pre-appointment scrutiny, but we were bitterly disappointed to find that it fell to the Health Committee. There are questions about overall scrutiny and where responsibility for the FSA would be best placed. Greater scrutiny and transparency can only enhance its role.

I urge the Minister to report on the Department’s discussions in Brussels and to tell us about the initial reactions to the Elliott recommendations, in particular on putting consumers first; zero tolerance; where the Government think they will go on intelligence gathering; the idea of a two-tier lab service, with a national one reporting to a European one; and the other conclusions. Will the Minister also inform us where we are with the shorter supply chain? Will he reassure us that retailers are not taking the supply chain on trust and that there will be better traceability and labelling overall?

--- Later in debate ---

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

As always in these debates, I have many questions to answer and not a great deal of time, but I will do my best. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing the debate, which has provided us with an excellent opportunity to explore the interim report on the integrity and assurance of food supply networks and for me to update colleagues on activities since the discovery of horsemeat fraud in 2013.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, the horsemeat fraud incident last year inflicted considerable damage on our food industry and undermined confidence in our food. It was damaging to the retailers and processors involved, and that should drive home to all of them the reality that they have more to lose than anyone by cutting corners or allowing the integrity of our food supply chain to be compromised.

Food fraud is completely unacceptable. It is a crime. The competitive pressures of the marketplace, to which my hon. Friend referred, are no excuse for misleading consumers and committing fraud, so lessons must be learned by all involved. The Government take the threat of food fraud very seriously and want to ensure that lessons are learned. That is why we asked Professor Elliott to look into what could be done to protect the food chain and to restore consumer confidence following the horsemeat fraud scandal.

As all hon. Members here know, Professor Elliott published his interim report in December 2013. We should note that, in it, he makes it clear that UK consumers have access to some of the safest food in the world, so it is not all bad. However, there is no room for complacency. Professor Elliott sets out what he has identified as the key features of a national food crime prevention strategy. The interim report includes no fewer than 48 recommendations, which Professor Elliott has been discussing with the industry and the Government as part of the consultation process for the preparation of his final report. The Government have also been discussing the interim report with interested parties. My hon. Friend specifically asked whether we were discussing the issue with retailers and with industry, and I can confirm that we are. Whenever I have meetings with retailers, it is one of the issues on our agenda.

There are 48 recommendations, but we can break down Professor Elliott’s report into three key themes. First, he identifies a package of measures in relation to testing and enforcement. Secondly, a big part of his report is dedicated to responsibilities in the supply chain, both on retailers and on processors. Finally, there are issues relating to the co-ordination of Government efforts, the links between Government agencies and co-ordination between Government agencies and local authorities. Professor Elliott raises important issues relating to all three areas, and we will consider carefully the supporting analysis in his final report before making a formal response.

However, there is much that we are already implementing, and I want to spend a little time highlighting what has already been done. First, the Government have increased their funding to support local authorities’ co-ordinated programme of food sampling from £1.6 million to £2.2 million in 2013-14. The Food Standards Agency and DEFRA are helping to target local authority resources through greater central co-ordination of intelligence, by providing additional support for complex investigations, by making available some of the funding for additional training and through prioritised sampling to target delivery at areas of agreed national importance.

Secondly, an intelligence hub has been established in the FSA to improve its capability to identify and prevent threats to food safety and integrity, based on the approach to intelligence used by the police. City of London police is heavily involved in that. That intelligence hub approach, which brings together local authorities, the police, the FSA and other interested parties, is a key step towards improving co-ordination, the need for which was highlighted in Professor Elliott’s interim report and which many hon. Members have referred to today. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet also talked about the importance of information sharing, particularly with industry. We are working with industry to tackle some of the commercial sensitivities that can act as a barrier to information sharing. The FSA is doing some work to improve its access to industry information.

Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) pointed out, the food fraud experienced last year was a problem at a European level, so we need action at a European level to tackle it. Despite famously being quite Eurosceptic, I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that we recognise the problem to be a European one, and that we need action at a European level. The new European food crime unit, which is being developed by the European Commission, will be an important part of that intelligence network. The FSA is working with the European Commission and with other member states to get the unit up and running as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members have talked about the importance of enforcement, and particularly pursuing convictions for the offences committed last year. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked why more had not been done. Action has been taken to try to secure convictions for the offences committed last year. Those investigations are taking a little longer than many people would hope, because they are quite complex and cross many national boundaries. A number of police authorities across Europe are involved: Dutch, Polish, Danish, Italian, French and our own. Because the crimes were committed on a pan-European level across borders, it is taking time to deliver those convictions.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is it not the case that the horse has bolted, to coin a phrase, and that those who have perpetrated the crimes will be long gone?

[George Eustice]

I do not accept that. Investigations are continuing at a number of sites across the UK. City of London police is co-ordinating the police forces for all the investigations. Five arrests have been made, and the announcement a couple of weeks ago by the Crown Prosecution Service of two cases being taken to court demonstrates that action is being taken to protect consumers from mislabelling and to tackle food businesses’ failure to ensure the traceability of the products that they supply.

The hon. Member for Ogmore talked about the penalties for committing food fraud crimes. The penalty for food offences can range from giving advice or a formal notice for very trivial breaches, such as if a mistake has been made on labelling, to criminal prosecutions for the most serious offences such as fraud. We should bear in mind that when it comes to fraud, it is possible to implement a prison sentence of 10 years. I think that there are sufficient penalties in our criminal law to tackle the most serious cases.

Several hon. Members have talked about the role of the industry, which is one of the key themes picked up by Professor Elliott. As I said at the outset, the food industry has the most to lose from a decline in confidence in the supply chain, and it has a responsibility to take a leading role. As of today, the industry has submitted more than 45,000 tests of beef products for horsemeat since the horsemeat scandal broke, and no new positives have been reported since the height of the incident. Retailers and processors have taken a thorough approach to testing. The tests are being carried out through the supply chain, not only by retailers but by processors, looking at the ingredients going into products in local convenience stores as well as large national retailers.

Food businesses and trade associations representing the whole food chain are also working with the FSA and Professor Elliott to consider how to make better use of audit and controls. Professor Elliott is keen to develop ways of achieving a more streamlined and effective auditing process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

No, I do not agree with that. It was right to separate policy making from enforcement. The issue we had with horsemeat was not a failure of policy: it was a failure of enforcement. Since then, we have increased funding to £2.2 million to help to support local authorities to deliver the national co-ordinated food sampling programme. The Food Standards Agency is also developing a new intelligence hub to improve its capability in identifying and preventing threats, and to co-ordinate action across Government.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Professor Elliott confirmed the findings of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that we have a severe shortage of public analysts and laboratories. He further found a gap in checks on cold-slab meats in cold storage and transportation. Can the Government act now, before the final Elliott report, to make good the testing by public analysts and public laboratories, and to address the other issues that Professor Elliott identified?

[George Eustice]

We will look carefully at the recommendation in Elliott’s final report, but the Food Standards Agency is working with industry and the European Commission to identify further targeted sampling programmes that could be carried out. As I said, we have increased the budget from £1.6 million to £2.2 million to help support local authorities. We have also introduced unannounced inspections of meat-cutting plants, and there have been more than 1,450 of those since 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I think we have made it very clear. The commitment in the coalition agreement still stands and I have made it clear that a vote will come forward at an appropriate time.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T2. Partnership funding for projects such as the Pickering pilot “Slowing the flow” scheme is being attracted from public sector bodies and, to a lesser extent, internal drainage boards. Will the Minister tell us what private sector partnership funding there has been and why the major review of partnership funding, which was expected to be published in October, has been delayed?

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

The Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is absolutely right to point out the important contribution that partnership funding is making. We anticipate £148 million coming forward across this spending review period, which will enable schemes that otherwise could not have gone forward. The question of private sector funding is important and it has come forward in a number of schemes around the country, but if local authorities or other public sector bodies want to make a contribution too, that is an equally valid way of bringing forward schemes that are important to keeping local people safe. However, I am happy to write to her and discuss how the review of partnership funding is progressing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend will find that in other countries the system is different. For example, in Germany the state supports all the cathedrals and churches, whereas the Church of England has to fund all our cathedrals and all our churches itself. We have the stewardship of more grade I listed buildings than any other entity. If my hon. Friend wants to go to worship in the cathedral, he can always do that for free, but I do not think anyone would object to tourists who want to see the heritage of a cathedral having to pay a modest amount to see that and support it.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

5. How much money the Church Commissioners anticipate they will be able to distribute to dioceses across England to support their mission in 2014.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Church Commissioners support the mission of each diocese depending on its need. Each diocese generally receives between £1 million and over £3 million, but that covers only a small proportion of the cost of running the Church. We must never underestimate the importance of the generous giving of church congregations, which accounts for most of the rest.

[Miss McIntosh]

The village church is at the heart of rural life, and I am delighted to say that the Bishop of Knaresborough is joining us for a celebration of the countryside on Saturday. What is the split between rural and urban pay from the diocesan contribution? I ask because the costs of running rural parishes are extremely high.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the parish church is invariably at the heart of English village life. It is difficult distinguishing between urban and rural dioceses, as many dioceses are very mixed. Her diocese of York receives between £2.5 million and £3 million each year. The dioceses with the greatest deprivation, Durham and Manchester, receive more than £3 million. We are trying to ensure that adequate financial support is provided by the Church Commissioners and the Church as a whole both to parishes in inner-city areas and to rural parishes serving important villages in her constituency, because the Church of England is a national Church which must reach every part of England.

Badger Cull

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing the debate, on leading it with her sterling contribution, and on showing such strength in such difficult circumstances. I absolutely agree with her that we have to learn to treat all animals, whether farm or wild, the same. We need to consider the implications of the economics of the case. I am sure that others will give more detail, but we have to recognise that the number of new cases of bovine TB is on the rise; it is doubling every nine years. In the 10 years to last November, 310,000 cattle across Great Britain were slaughtered, and last year, between January and November alone, 30,377 otherwise healthy cattle were slaughtered—an average of over 90 a day. In the last 10 years, bovine TB has cost the taxpayer £500 million, and there is an expectation that that will rise to £1 billion over the next decade.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

rose—

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[Miss McIntosh]

I will take two interventions now, and then no more.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I appreciate that the figures are still high, but does my hon. Friend agree that a recent report shows that in 2013 there was a significant drop of 14% in the incidence of TB in cattle, and the rate that the disease is spreading also declined by 7% in 2013? The figures are going down.

[Miss McIntosh]

I stand by the figures that I have just given.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does my hon. Friend agree that animal welfare campaigners and farmers want to see healthy cattle and badgers, and that is why I welcome her preamble? Does she also agree that this Government should focus on vaccines, as the last Government should have?

[Miss McIntosh]

I will come on to vaccines.

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. The House is very short of alternatives. If we are to have a mature, intelligent debate, the House and the public need to consider what the realistic alternatives are. The badger population was in decline and was given protection in the 1970s, for very good reason, but when we see the extent to which the population has grown and the implications for the spread of bovine TB, the position is very serious. I have two auction marts in my constituency, one in Thirsk and one in Malton, and the implications of the cattle restrictions generally are difficult for them.

I want to make a general point about the six-day rule. I understand the position with regard to the cattle restrictions relating to bovine TB that are in place in the south-west, and the need for a swift response to any potential animal disease. But, particularly at red cattle marts such as Thirsk, the operation of the six-day rule, as intensive and as regulated as it is, is having a negative impact. Many livestock producers will not take their cattle or sheep to mart—it is true that there are fewer pigs now—on the basis that they may not be able to obtain the price that they need and they will have to go to slaughter anyway. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at reviewing the six-day rule. It could be brought back swiftly if need be.

The sad fact, which has been demonstrated in today’s debate, is that not many of us living in Britain today have close rural roots. When a pilot cull was introduced in Ireland, it proceeded smoothly, effectively, clinically, and virtually without disruption. Do the Government have anything to learn from the conduct of the Irish cull? The fact that many of us now live metropolitan lifestyles leads, regrettably, to an increasing misunderstanding of animal husbandry and welfare issues.

In the few moments that I have left I want to commend to the House the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on vaccination against bovine TB and the Government’s response. I am delighted to record that both Front-Bench teams were well represented on the Committee when it took evidence. We looked carefully at injectable vaccine for badgers, oral vaccine for badgers and oral vaccine for cattle. There are difficulties with each that we can rehearse this afternoon, but will the Minister update the House today on where we are, particularly with regard to reaching agreement in Brussels with our European partners and at home on each of those matters?

I pay tribute to the work of the Food and Environment Research Agency in Sand Hutton in Thirsk and Malton—

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am reaching a conclusion.

FERA is doing work on sterilisation. Oral contraception has been referred to, and the sterilisation of the badger population would be welcome, but it will inevitably have a cost implication. There are also questions about its practicality. It would make sense for the Minister to update us today on that work and to review its cost implications and practicality. That could be a real alternative. I was not aware of it until the Select Committee had the opportunity to visit FERA. Today’s debate is particularly timely as we consider the alternatives to produce a healthy cattle and a healthy badger population.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I will respond, Mr Deputy Speaker, because obviously the shadow Minister has an issue with the fact that we have received the report. We have indeed received it, and we are considering it. It was not our decision when the report was delivered to us; an independent expert panel decided that. It was not our decision to have this debate, nor did we get involved in the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to have the debate today, and nor is it the role of Labour Members to dictate when the Government should publish the report. Let me be very clear: we have always been clear that we will publish the report and then, when we have made a decision—we have not made any decisions yet—[Interruption.] No, I am not going to confirm that there will be a vote. I have discussed and debated this many times, and I am sure we will have many opportunities to do so again in the future.

[Miss McIntosh]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have had a very well-mannered, even-handed and good-tempered debate, and I regret that we have had what the record may prove to be a vote on very erroneous grounds indeed. I would like to refer to this point of order when we have the record of the vote.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will be quite honest: I do not treat what you have said as a point of order. There is no record of the vote as yet, and we will have to wait and see.

Managing Flood Risk

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I welcome this opportunity to open this estimates day debate on managing flood risk. To put today in context, this is the day of the memorial service in honour of Nelson Mandela; it is a week after the visit by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to address both Houses of Parliament; and it is a day on which the future of Crimea and the rest of Ukraine remains very uncertain. In its own way, though, what we meet to discuss today is equally international and portentous in its nature, as we have seen some of the most damaging storms, most likely emanating, we are told, from the Atlantic on the jet steam and causing immense damage in 2013-14.

I am delighted to welcome the Minister to his place. We were most fortunate to enjoy his company on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and indeed that of the shadow Minister, when we adopted this report in July 2013. How prescient that report appears with hindsight. We have had record rainfall over the past two years, which has led to the most extensive flooding, cost the economy millions of pounds, and caused disruption and distress to householders and communities across the UK.

Additional capital funding for flood defences is welcome, since we are told that every £1 spent on flood defences to protect communities spurs growth and delivers economic benefits worth £8. However, we concluded that spending on flood defences has simply not kept pace with increasing risks from more frequent severe weather. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must ensure that investment increases by some £20 million year on year. We need that money over the next 25 years to protect homes and businesses better. Maintenance of these defences and the effective dredging of watercourses must be a priority.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I should like initially to set out our overview before I take interventions.

The Committee welcomes proposals for a new Flood Re insurance scheme, to ensure that everyone is able to get affordable insurance. We are told that the scheme will be funded by a small levy of about £10.50 a year on all household insurance customers. The Committee insisted, during the passage of the Water Bill, that safeguards be introduced to keep the costs down. It would be interesting if the Minister confirmed whether the Prime Minister has asked for the band H and certain other exclusions to be brought into the review of Flood Re, as was reported over the weekend.

The Government is an insurer of last resort. We were told in evidence that, if there were a one-in-250-year event, such as the one that we have just seen, in the first two or three years of Flood Re coming into effect, the Government would take over as insurer of last resort. We were also told that, for the first two or three years of the Flood Re scheme, there simply would not be enough money in the pot to fund such claims against it. The House needs to understand the implications of that eventuality.

Delay by the Government and the insurance industry in agreeing the provision of affordable flood insurance has caused householders unnecessary uncertainty. The opaque cross-subsidy in the current statement of principles must be translated into a more transparent scheme with clear and robust governance arrangements. This debate provides a useful opportunity for the Minister to update the House on progress towards state aid approval in Brussels, because the last we heard was that had not been embarked upon, which seems to be leaving it late in the day. It raises other exclusions in addition to band H, such as why the cut-off year of 2009 was chosen, and why small businesses such as farms remain excluded.

With spending on the maintenance of defences and watercourses apparently at its lowest for many years, short-sighted reductions in revenue funding appear to threaten and undermine the benefits of capital investment in flood defences, but I firmly believe, as the Committee does, that we should not rely completely on Government sources, but should look at partnership approaches such as the Pickering “Slowing the flow” scheme in my constituency as well as measures by insurance companies.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

That is exactly the point that I wanted to make. We cannot necessarily expect the Environment Agency to fund the totality of flood defences. In Banbury, recently completed flood defences cost £17 million: £9 million came from the Environment Agency, but £8 million came from others, including the district council, Network Rail, Thames Water and local landowners. Many people have a role to play in contributing to making sure that flood defences work, not just the Environment Agency.

[Miss McIntosh]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I do not wish to detain the House too long, but I shall come on to look at that. The Government and the Minister have an opportunity to elaborate on this, but the House must be persuaded of the contribution that private bodies can make. The Select Committee has not been persuaded of that. Personally, I think that there are huge opportunities for water companies, but we need to amend the 2014 pricing review to allow that, so it would be useful to have an update. In addition, I should like to know whether the Minister believes that insurance companies will step up to the plate regarding infrastructure spending.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Although I understand entirely the argument about multiple sources of funding for many flood defences, some major defences—most obviously, in my case, and in the case of my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Humber defences—are strategic and, by definition, have to be carried out by a major strategic authority. Under those circumstances, the 1:8 rule and the requirement for other funding do not work. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) accept that strategic intervention should take place on a different scale?

[Miss McIntosh]

My right hon. Friend brings me to the core of my opening remarks.

We could argue the whole afternoon about how much each side has paid in capital funding over the past two strategic reviews. That argument over capital expenditure is worth having, to the extent that that expenditure has increased, but the Committee on Climate Change—I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) will rehearse this—concluded that we have to spend some £20 million a year extra. The kernel of the argument is how we define revenue and how we define maintenance expenditure. We do not completely understand where the money is being spent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Miss McIntosh]

If I could make a little progress first, I will then take interventions.

There are a number of maintenance activities which the Environment Agency groups into four main areas. The first is operations: inspecting assets, providing utilities, and operating flood barriers and pumping stations. Some of those have passed from internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency, and have not been maintained since 2004-05. It is important to put that on the record.

The second maintenance activity is conveyance. The Committee was shocked to learn that only £30 million is spent each year in the whole of England and Wales on controlling aquatic weed, dredging, clearing screens and removing obstructions from rivers. We will never know whether regular maintenance and dredging on the Somerset levels by the IDBs or the Environment Agency would have prevented the traumatic flooding we have seen since last autumn and right through the winter.

The third activity is maintaining flood defences and structures, including carrying out inspections and minor repairs, managing grass, trees and bushes and controlling the populations of burrowing animals on flood embankments. My argument is that under the previous Government much of the regular maintenance work was simply not done by the Environment Agency because its political masters, the Government, said not to do it because of birds nesting. I argue that IDBs work with nature and dredge only at the right times of year.

The fourth activity is mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, control and automation—MEICA—meaning carrying out minor repairs to, and replacement of, pumps and tidal barriers.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many places, including Wokingham, experienced flooding because essential maintenance work on ditches, culverts, drains and small rivers, which are relatively low-budget items, had not been undertaken by the Environment Agency? In the previous year the Environment Agency spent £1.2 billion overall and massively increased its staff, but it did not have a penny to protect the people of Wokingham from the floods that have now hit them. Is it not a question of how we spend the Environment Agency’s budget?

[Miss McIntosh]

My right hon. Friend makes my case for me.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

First, is the hon. Lady or her Committee satisfied with the responses of the various agencies in dealing with flooding? Secondly, is she happy with the level of staff employed by the Environment Agency?

[Miss McIntosh]

I think there is a coherent view across the House this afternoon that when IDBs, district councils and the flood levy from the regional flood committee contribute to the Environment Agency, it is not always clear what work is done. That is something we are here to debate this afternoon.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

The hon. Lady said that we will never know what the result of dredging in Somerset would have been. I suspect that we would still have had flooding, but it would have started later, could have been removed quicker and would have been far less extensive. Does she agree that the initial ask we are making of the Environment Agency and the Government—the 8 km of dredging, which is the most crucial dredge—now needs to be under way? The maintenance dredging every year by local authorities and IDBs should not be confined to that area, but should look at other potential problem areas, such as the Great Bow bridge in Langport, and connecting Monks Leaze Clyse through to the River Sowy and the King’s Sedgemoor drain.

[Miss McIntosh]

I do not have my hon. Friend’s depth of knowledge, so I shall simply refer to Lord Smith’s evidence to our Committee. Page 16 states:

“Lord Smith stated that asset management spend would equate to £169 million in 2012-13, reducing to £146 million in 2013-14 and £136 million in 2014-15. He noted that there were some ‘pinch points’ in specific places such as on the Parrett and Tone rivers. He further noted that no additional revenue or operating funding was being provided to match the new £120 million capital funding announced in the Autumn Statement.”

I refer to the Committee’s conclusion, which my hon. Friend will be aware of, that there should have been some regular maintenance of the Parrett and the Tone well in advance of the floods last autumn.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I cannot speak to the situation in Somerset, but I hope that the hon. Lady would not advocate dredging in every situation. In the early 1990s and early 2000s, the local authority in my constituency sped up water flows higher up the valley, which led to a significant problem further down the valley. Surely we need a whole-valley answer.

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Gentleman will have listened carefully to the four headings that I set out—the different types of maintenance, of which dredging is a small part.

I turn to the flood defence maintenance funding for the coming financial years. It is with some sorrow that I see the reduction in the headline figures for flood defence maintenance, from £172 million in the financial year 2010-11 to £147 million for 2013-14. I hope that in discussing the supplementary budget, the debate will achieve one thing: an increase in maintenance from revenue funding and a more general grasp of the importance of maintenance in all its forms to preventing flooding in future. The Environment Agency’s £147 million maintenance funding for 2013-14 is allocated as follows, in accordance with the four maintenance categories that I rehearsed earlier. I repeat that there is only £30 million this year for clearing watercourses, normally referred to as dredging, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. For operation there is £44 million, for structures there is £52 million and for mechanical electrical instrumentation control and automation there is £21 million.

The role of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in climate change is narrow; it is about adaptation and seeking to increase resilience. However, it would help to allow the conveyance of water, to slow the flow with land management schemes upstream—dredging, desilting and other means—and to stop fast-growing willow coppice from blocking watercourses in order to allow the water to flow away in Somerset, Yorkshire and other areas across the country, to prevent flooding.

My Committee and I absolutely accept that there is no one-stop option that will prevent all forms of flooding; maintenance, as well as land management upstream schemes, has to be considered.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is incoherence at the heart of the Government’s policy on climate change and flooding? The Prime Minister said that money was no object when it came to the relief effort to clear up after floods, but less than two weeks later he was handing huge new subsidies to the fossil fuel industry; when those fossil fuels are burned, extreme weather events, including flooding, are made more likely. Does she agree with the commentator who said today that that is like promising to rebuild Dresden while ordering more bombers to flatten it again?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that I believe that there is an incoherence in policy. We import woodchip at huge expense from the United States and other parts of the country to co-fire coal at Drax power station in Selby; I should be encouraging farmers in north Yorkshire and all around the country to grow fast-growing willow coppice trees to co-fire that power station. There are inconsistencies and incoherence in our renewals policy and we should visit those as part of our flood prevention scheme.

We have seen just about every type of flooding possible since autumn last year—coastal flooding, tidal surges, river flooding and overtopping, surface water flooding and, most recently, groundwater flooding. We know that all this has been the worst flooding incident in this country in 250 years, since 1766. This debate is the opportunity for the Department to share how the Government seek to adapt to more extreme weather events and how we are becoming more resilient and building more appropriately. Given what was asked at Communities and Local Government questions earlier, I am not sure that the House is entirely convinced that we are yet building in the most appropriate places—that is, not in areas that have something to do with flooding in their name or that act as functional floodplains.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

In 2007, 55,000 houses were flooded in this country. My understanding is that this winter about 7,000 houses were flooded. That is a personal tragedy for every single one of those 7,000, but I am not sure how my hon. Friend can claim that last winter’s flooding was the worst for 250 years. We had the worst rainfall for 250 years, but in the context of 2007, the flooding was nowhere near that scale.

[Miss McIntosh]

It was the worst weather event that we have had. My hon. Friend’s intervention raises the very interesting question of why the Bellwin formula was not raised for the roads, bridges and houses that were damaged in 2012-13. He is right about the number of houses flooded. I think that more houses were flooded in the whole of the Yorkshire region in 2012-13 than were flooded in total this year. I supported the bid by North Yorkshire county council to increase the Bellwin limit and I will come on to that in a moment.

My hon. Friend also raises the very interesting question—this supports my argument—of where the funding will come from. I absolutely agree that most of the flood defences held and that many more houses would have flooded than was the case. The House should celebrate that, but where will the money come from to repair those flood defences that held this time but that will have been damaged by the sustained bashing from the storm?

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that in Norfolk the vicious tidal surge of 5 and 6 December reached record levels along parts of the coast and in King’s Lynn in particular. Is she aware that the tidal defences held up remarkably well? There have been some breaches, which the Environment Agency repaired very quickly. Does my hon. Friend agree that managed retreat anywhere along the Norfolk coast would not be an acceptable policy under any circumstances?

[Miss McIntosh]

I will come on to the role that farmers can play. Ever since I was the MEP for the whole of the Essex coast for five years, I have not been a big fan of managed retreat and have never been persuaded that it is a good thing.

We should recognise the money that the Government have very generously provided. I believe it is £2 million for tourism and £10 million for farms, but it would seem that we need an extra £20 million year-on-year increase in flood management capital funding over the next 25 years to keep pace with the increasing flood threat. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s response as to the Government’s view on why that might not happen.

Another great development would be more flexibility to transfer money between capital maintenance expenditure and activities. I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister to grab this opportunity to review either the Treasury Green Book or the Environment Agency’s point-scoring system. We heard evidence that the cost-benefit ratio for household protection schemes is 5:1, but that for all other assets it is 18:1. This is, therefore, a good opportunity to address that. During Prime Minister’s questions some two or three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that all flood funding was up for review. Did he mean a review of the scoring system, which is long overdue? Although it was visited in a modest way in 2010, I believe it should be reviewed from top to bottom.

We concluded that the current model for allocating flood defence funding to protecting property is biased towards urban rather than rural areas. In fact, our report argues that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to protect rural areas and that there is a risk to food security as more land becomes at risk of flooding.

I attended the National Farmers Union farming conference last week. The NFU states that 58% of the most productive land—that is, grade 1, farmed English land—is within a floodplain. Our report states that 14% of agricultural land in England and Wales is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. A drop in our food self-sufficiency raises a long-term question over ongoing food security.

[Mr Heath]

I am very pleased that the hon. Lady is making a point about the difference between rural and urban areas. There is a further complication when it comes to Somerset, in that people assume that it is a traditional floodplain, but it is not: it is reclaimed, inland sea. It is the great mere of Somerset. Therefore, all of the equations that would work elsewhere do not work when every single drop of water has to be pumped up and over to a river that is higher than the surrounding land.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend makes his local case very powerfully, and I commend him for doing so.

How points are scored needs to be revisited. It is important to give a higher value for the benefits of agricultural land and of the protection of land to secure future food production. The big question is about ensuring that reduced regulation on farmers and landowners can allow them to remove vegetation from river banks. Now that we have had six months of the seven pilot schemes for the vegetation removal process, I would go so far as to urge the Minister to end the pilots and to roll out the process across the country, so allowing farmers to remove vegetation from their river banks.

I want to say a word about the role of internal drainage boards.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the hon. Lady moves on to the subject of drainage boards, may I gently say—I am listening to her speech with close attention, as I invariably do—that I am cautiously optimistic that she is approaching her concluding remarks? I say that not because of any lack of attention or interest on my part, but because several other Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I know that she will be as eager as I am to hear their contributions.

[Miss McIntosh]

Indeed. That is the purpose of the debate, Mr Speaker.

I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. The Select Committee concluded that drainage boards are best placed to remove the vegetation and to carry out the maintenance that has been mentioned. Indeed, we are grateful that the Government have looked favourably on this opportunity to allow IDBs to use their local knowledge and resources, and to undertake more of the investment. We believe that there is a lost opportunity in relation to funding from private bodies that DEFRA—

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I will stick to Mr Speaker’s strictures about reaching my conclusion sooner rather than later.

There is an opportunity to lever in more than 15% of contributions from other sources. Will the Minister tell us how the Government intend to do that? Do they intend to use common agricultural policy funds to encourage farmers to undertake flood prevention measures by rewarding them through EU agri-environment schemes or by paying proper compensation for flood storage, flood alleviation and other such schemes? Innovative funding should stretch to allowing water companies to invest through the price review, as I have said. I am a big fan of SUDS, and I believe that sustainable drains should be introduced by the autumn at the absolute latest. Most of Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations have been adopted, but not, I note, those on ending the automatic right to connect and about sustainable drains.

I want to place on the record our commendation of the volunteers, flood wardens, police, fire, ambulance and Environment Agency staff and all those who responded to the floods.

There is scope for the Bellwin formula to be overhauled and reviewed radically. I have mentioned how the Yorkshire and the Humber region, particularly North Yorkshire, has not benefited from the formula. We recommend that the Bellwin scheme be amended to enable local authorities to secure central Government assistance to repair and reinstate roads and other infrastructure damaged by flooding. We also recommend a review of local authorities having to incur costs of at least 0.2% of its annual revenue budget to qualify for Bellwin funding to make it fairer by measuring the impact on the local community. I add that there should be a review of the cap on spending, which I understand hampers the ability of district and county councils to raise any further contributions towards a local levy.

Finally, we were told by the Association of British Insurers that this was a one-in-250-years event. It said that the cost to date has been £426 million, of which £14 million has already been spent. We welcome Flood Re, but there are too many unknowns. We need to know more about the cross-subsidy, what the final figure will be and—I repeat—from which budget the funds will come and what progress has been made on state aid should the Government act as an insurer of last resort for a similar one-in-250-years weather event. It is obviously extremely important that the military played a role in the recovery stage during the recent floods. However, the Government are silent over which budget is covering that military activity. It would be extremely helpful for the House to know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

May I apologise to the House for my lateness? Unfortunately, I got stuck on a train from Newcastle for reasons I do not need to detain the House with. I will take as little time as I can so as not to abuse the position that I have been given in this debate.

I thank the Minister and the whole team for all their work—I am talking about the Prime Minister all the way down through the various ministries. I also want to thank Opposition Members too. The Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency. He was extremely magnanimous with his time and he did not, dare I say it, make a spectacle of himself. Unlike many Members, I welcome ministerial visits and Ministers seeing what is happening in the area. This Minister has been to the region more than most to chair a number of meetings.

We are putting together a report that will be given to the Prime Minister and the House later in the week. As the Minister knows, we must change the whole way that we deal with this problem. Members have expressed the hope that we never experience the same thing again, but as sure as night follows day, we will and we must be aware of that. It is as certain as death and taxes. It may not be the Somerset levels that are affected, but it will be somewhere. There must be fundamental change that crosses the political divide and that is agreed on by both sides of the House.

The one hurdle that we all have to overcome is the Treasury. It will try to stop us spending the money that is required to put in defences and the works that are needed to ensure that the flooding does not happen in the future. Members from across the House must make it clear to the Chancellor that we have to be given the money that we need. We are the sixth-largest economy in the world, yet here we are, unable to raise money to defend our own people from the most basic problem faced by man—certainly in my constituency—since prehistoric times, which is water. We manage it well. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) was Minister he put in place a lot of changes to try to make the system work. Although I occasionally berated him in the local press, I respect him for his hard work. [Interruption.] I tried to do that without a smile and failed dismally. It is crucial that we take responsibility for the problem and say that each area will have to be defended properly.

[Miss McIntosh]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Chamber? I have a question that is vexing the House and other colleagues in Somerset. If we look at the whole management system of the Somerset levels, to what extent could the damage have been prevented if we had had both upstream flood management storage as well as regular maintenance and drainage downstream?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. She is most astute. One of the problems is that we do not have the capacity to pump into the river below a certain level. I am talking about the area on the border between my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). What happened was that the river backed up. We could not get the water around. We have two points into the sea; one is through the River Parrett and the other is through the King’s Sedgemoor drain. Both are not able to take what we need to pump into them. Nearly 60 square miles of land are underwater, which really focuses our minds on the problems faced by our constituents. Although we have not lost many properties, it has devastated the tourism industry and many other things in the local area. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) knows from his long experience of farming nearby how dangerous these areas can be.

The Minister has made it quite clear that local input is needed. The internal drainage boards and the local Environment Agency—I am not suggesting asking Lord Smith for one second, nor would I—have an enormous input to make, but that must be done in conjunction with local people. That is why the meetings that we have been holding in Sedgemoor or Somerton and Frome have been so important; we have been able to use that local input. I was rather worried when the EA sent John Varley, whom I have met a few times. I find him the most impossible man, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury would disagree with me. It is obvious that a lot of people have others’ best interests at heart.

We must do three things. First, we must look at the Bridgwater barrage. That will cost an enormous amount of money, but it is vital. Secondly, we must look at the pump system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I applaud the residents of Purley, because I have seen that approach work not only in my constituency but right across the country. The National Flood Forum has a cut-and-paste organisation for local communities to pick up and run with. It is a superb organisation with real knowledge and expertise. I know that the Department and the Environment Agency will also assist local communities in setting up a flood forum. The difficulty is that communities that have never been flooded will be flooded. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) that there will be new flooding, as we all know, and it is in those communities that we want lead local flood authorities to start getting voluntary action going, with flood wardens, parish councils getting involved and local communities setting up those sorts of organisations.

I am guilty of not responding to the second point my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) made, on whether we should introduce a statutory activity. I blow hot and cold about Pitt’s recommendation to create a duty on fire and rescue services to prepare and be equipped to deal with flooding. In my constituency over the past few weeks, we have seen Tyne and Wear fire and rescue service, Cheshire fire and rescue service, East Yorkshire fire and rescue service and many others, all coming through the centrally controlled asset management register, which brings precisely these sorts of assets to our constituencies when we need them, and they are still there today doing wonderful work. Something is happening, and perhaps more can be done.

[Miss McIntosh]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did as Minister. Is it a matter of regret to him that we still do not have sustainable drainage systems in place? Does he accept that one of Pitt’s core recommendations was to end the automatic right to connect and make IDBs, water companies and others statutory consultees on future planning applications?

[Richard Benyon]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was not aware that there was a time limit and will race through my final remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the figures belie that. In 2011-12, there was a budget of £573 million; in 2012-13, £576 million; and in 2013-14, £577 million. The budget for 2014-15 is £615 million. Over the four-year spending period, the Government have allocated just £2.34 billion to flood defences, compared with £2.37 billion over the previous spending period. Those figures are not the ones that the Prime Minister used two weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions, but they are the ones set out clearly by the independent Committee on Climate Change in its policy note on 21 January, used by the House of Commons Library in its briefing on flood defence spending and set out by the UK Statistics Authority just six days ago. They can even be corroborated on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the correction it had to put out after the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister both “mis-spoke”. As the UK Statistics Authority reported last week, the flood defence budget has seen a real-terms cut of £247 million in this spending period. The Committee was absolutely clear about the risk from the reduction of flood defence funds. Last October, in their official response to the report, the Government said:

“In the context of the wider need to pay down the deficit, we believe this is an excellent outcome and demonstrates the priority this Government attaches to managing flood risk.”

Well, yes, it certainly does.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is the hon. Gentleman not falling into the trap that I referred to earlier? Successive Governments have been too focused on physical structures that may well fail and need to be repaired. We need to have a better balance between capital expenditure and the revenue maintenance expenditure and to look to sources of funding other than local or national Government.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady will recall my own contributions to the report. I was very keen that we put far more reliance on green infrastructure, and I will come on to that a little later. She will know that the Committee’s report was absolutely clear about the importance of partnership funding. Of course she will recognise—I think she did remark on it in the House a few days ago—that the £148 million that the Government had originally included in their spending figures when Ministers mis-spoke on this issue has not in fact been produced. It was actually £67 million of partnership funding that has been produced, not the £148 million that they counted for the period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I can indeed clarify, as others have at the Dispatch Box, that the business support scheme, which is aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises in areas affected by the floods, will look at businesses that have been affected by the extreme weather, not just those that have been inundated directly. There is a fund for farmers who have suffered waterlogged fields to help restore those fields to farmable land as quickly as possible, along with £30 million for local authorities for road maintenance, which should help affected areas to recover.

We have to remember that, outside current events, flooding is disruptive to people’s lives in the long term, and planning and defending against flooding remain a long-term priority for DEFRA and for the Government as a whole. We are spending £2.4 billion over the four-year period between 2010 and 2014, compared with £2.2 billion in the previous four-year period. That means that we have investment plans to improve protection to at least 465,000 households by the end of the decade. Looking forward, we have made an unprecedented long-term six-year commitment to record levels of capital investment to improve defences: £370 million in 2015-16, and the same in real terms each year, rising to over £400 million in 2020-21.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend is addressing the very point that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I made, which goes to the heart of the argument. There have been delays from the Department, particularly in implementing sustainable drainage systems—that is not necessarily its fault—and the review of partnership funding has not yet reported. Will the Department look favourably at allowing more transfer from capital expenditure to revenue and maintenance expenditure, as the hon. Member for Brent North suggested? In the long term, there are opportunities for water companies and others such as insurance companies to contribute to both funding streams.

[Dan Rogerson]

The figures that I am setting out into the future are for capital spending, and we expect revenue amounts to be settled as budgets are introduced for each year. However, the points that the Chair of the Select Committee makes about seeking contributions from all those involved in water management are entirely valid. In her speech she spoke about water company investment in water management that goes beyond the “hardware” side of things and looks more at the softer side of managing water through land management solutions. Ofwat is considering what it does with totex—total expenditure. It is looking at expenditure across the piece, rather than just at capital—the sort of things that appear on balance sheets that, in the past, would have been the focus. I accept that many people want to change that, so the fact that Ofwat has allowed water companies to do more of that will be beneficial.

The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who is not in the Chamber today, but who took part in the Westminster Hall debate, pointed out the involvement of South West Water, along with my Department, landowners and managers, in an initiative looking at how water can be retained on Exmoor, which has made a difference to the moor’s catchments. That is a good example of the sort of work that can take place. The Chair of the Select Committee often speaks about what is happening in her constituency with the “Slowing the Flow” project, which is working on land management solutions. She is absolutely right that we need to emphasise the economic importance of investment in flood defences and, indeed, in water management. If we can prevent flooding and take that blight away from land that could be developed successfully, that would make a big contribution. If we can avoid the impacts that hon. Members have discussed, we can make a huge difference to local economies.