Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that World Trade Organisation rules mean that we can require purchasing to British standards in Government procurement, but we cannot require produce to be British. We adhere to those rules, and we actively promote Government buying standards involving all Departments sourcing food that is produced to British standards in order to promote those standards. In my own Department, the figure is 18%.

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

Many people are employed in rural areas, particularly the uplands, in livestock production. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the conflicting messages from her Department and the Department of Health about the eating of meat, which could potentially have very damaging consequences for jobs and growth in rural areas?

[Mrs Spelman]

Clearly nutrition is a lead for the Department of Health, but it is quite clear that meat forms part of a balanced diet. I am very proud of the fact that producers in this country produce meat to the highest standards of animal welfare, food and hygiene anywhere in the world. As we have just discussed, we actively promote the consumption of food that is produced to those very high standards within Government and among the wider public.

Fisheries Council

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome—I am attempting irony, which never quite works from this position. She really needs to understand that at the beginning of last week we were looking down the barrel of a gun at cuts that could have resulted from a penalty regulation introduced by the Commission. Its interpretation of the cod recovery plan could have resulted in between half and two thirds of the Scottish fleet being put out of business, the Northern Irish nephrops fleet being tied up for 11 months of next year and a great many other vessels and fleets around the country being put out of business. We argued that both at meetings last week and at the end of the week at the Council and we got things reversed. We did so by close working with Ministers from other devolved Governments, and I thank them for their efforts.

If the hon. Lady looked into the details, she would see that although vessels will have a reduced number of days at sea next year, what we secured, through our interpretation of the cod recovery plan, was the ability for them to buy back days at sea by the imposition of other methods of conservation. So she simply has not understood the difference between the control order that the Commission has now withdrawn and the remains of the cod recovery plan.

The hon. Lady asked me to visit the Western Isles. I have done so in the past but not in this role, and I will certainly do so in the future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has reminded me that I am due to visit Shetland soon, and I see such visits as an important part of my job as UK Minister. She rightly says that there is an important social element to this, because the men who risk their lives to get this healthy and much-needed food on to our plates also support people in ports.

The Government remain absolutely committed to reform of the common fisheries policy. I sat up until 4 o’clock on Saturday morning arguing about net sizes, the gauge of nets, the Orkney trawl and eliminator trawls—such details simply should not be the subject of a management system where the people imposing regulations on the fishery are sometimes located 1,000 miles away from the fishermen who are supposed to use them. We must have reform that is more decentralised and that gets away from the micro-management that has failed. I believe that last week exposed a system that is obsessed with process and therefore ignores outcomes. The cod recovery plan is not working because the Commission sticks so rigidly to the process and the rules and regulations.

What we have achieved is a realisation from the Commission that it must start to look at the process, because the outcomes we all want to achieve are being lost. The hon. Lady is right that Scotland’s fleet has done many good things. It has led the way in real-time closures and selective measures, but it has not done so exclusively. Wonderful work has been done around the United Kingdom and we want to see it being brought forward. That is why we have secured the science budget, which the hon. Lady asked me about, to ensure that the information we can give the Commission is accurate. We faced 25% cuts in total allowable catch for data-poor stocks, but we managed to argue against that, not out of a blind desire to let our fishermen go fishing but because there was scientific evidence for it.

When the hon. Lady talked about last week, she talked as though Britain was somehow isolated in Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is today at the Environment Council and she will have the same experience as I had, which is of a close working relationship. I built alliances with the French and the Germans, and, as I said, with the Spanish, the Irish, the Danish and those from many other countries. I can assure the hon. Lady that Britain is far from being isolated in these matters.

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

I congratulate the Minister on his stamina and on delivering an agreement that was in the best interests of Britain. What does he understand centralisation to mean under the fishery reforms? I hope he will join me in wishing Denmark well as it takes over the presidency. Does he share my concern at the lack of science? He referred to the data-poor species, but we are proceeding with these annual rounds with a complete ignorance of the science about the stocks and climate change, warmer waters and the movement of species. Will he also give us an undertaking today that our inshore fishing fleet will not be disadvantaged in the future reform of the common fisheries policy?

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend will know that I have been particularly keen in this job to see a better deal for the inshore fleet. I believe that the pilots we are about to start will show a new way of managing the inshore fleet and I can assure her that the scientific evidence we require for that will be vital. As we roll out the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the marine conservation zones, we will see further investment in information about what is going on in our seas, on the seabed and so on, to ensure that we protect those areas as much as possible.

My hon. Friend asked about regionalisation and it is vital that we get this right. This is a once-in-a-decade opportunity, and, frankly, I do not believe that we will have another chance if we do not get it right this time. Decentralisation must mean an end to the top-down detailed decisions that I described earlier being taken so far from the fisheries. The problem we have in the United Kingdom is that our fisheries are complex. They are mixed fisheries with species swimming alongside each other, which means that if one species is targeted another is caught. Systems of management such as the cod recovery plan that operate from the sub-Arctic waters of the north down to the waters of Spain simply do not work because they are a one-size-fits-all solution and that simply does not work with fisheries.

Bovine TB

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady asked a lot of questions so I will answer them as quickly as I can. First, I should point out that this is a science-led approach to the pilots and that when in office the previous Labour Government spent £50 million on trials. The science is important and this Government have responded to what was learned from those trials. We learned that culling could be more effective if the boundaries of the control area were firm ones, to reduce the perturbation effect. In addition, the ground she cited—she said that the cost would be prohibitive—overlooks that fact that the farmers have agreed to pay. I encourage the shadow Secretary of State to look at the long tail from that trial. Five and a half years after the analysis, the trial continues to provide a benefit in reduced TB incidence in those areas.

The method to which the hon. Lady referred—controlled shooting—is commonly used to control other wildlife populations, such as deer, foxes and rabbits. We therefore have reasonable confidence in our assumption that the method will be both effective and humane in relation to badgers, but, to be absolutely clear, those who undertake the culling will be required to have deer-stalking level 1 proficiency or equivalent, and they will be required to undertake an additional course to ensure that they understand badger physiognomy.

On cost-effectiveness, in the end, it is up to farmers to choose whether or not to be part of a controlled reduction of badgers in their area, but the Government make a requirement that groups of farmers form a limited company that puts aside in a bank account the four-year cost of the culling programme plus a 25% contingency, which deals with the hon. Lady’s point about the contingency cost.

Natural England’s existing staff will contribute to the programme. The overall cost to the Government of £6.22 million over 10 years must be seen in comparison with the overall cost of the unchecked progress of the disease, which will be £1 billion a year or more to the taxpayer over the next 10 years. The costs need to be seen in the context of the overall burden on the taxpayer.

I have had helpful and constructive conversations with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but it is up to the police to deal with the precise operational details of ensuring public safety throughout the pilot process. We should not simply extrapolate an estimated cost from the pilots, as, I am afraid, the hon. Lady just did. Part of the point of the pilots is to establish more precisely what the exact cost will be. I have agreed with the Home Office to share those policing costs in so far as additional and reasonable costs are incurred.

On humaneness, we can be assured that Natural England will monitor the cull licences very carefully. If any farmers should be so minded to exceed the six-week period, they would obviously lose their licence. I do not believe, therefore, that that will happen.

It is important to remember that the species is protected but not endangered. The last time the population was surveyed—in the 1990s—there were between 250,000 and 300,000 badgers in Great Britain. Of course, the previous Labour Government had ample opportunity to launch a survey if they had wanted to, but this Government have seen fit to do so. That is important in ascertaining the population in the controlled areas. We have satisfied ourselves that the Bern convention would not be breached by the policy that I have proposed.

Finally, I agree with the hon. Lady on this point. She said that a matter of judgment and not the science alone drives this decision. If the previous Government had exercised their judgment and acted when they had the chance, the disease, and the cost of dealing with it, would not have escalated to the point it has reached today.

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

Farmers and wildlife conservation groups will welcome the statement. The badger population must be controlled. Any constituency that produces so many cattle, including mine, lives in fear of one rogue animal entering the chain.

Will the Secretary of State address what the position will be when we have a vaccine in place, given that the meat of vaccinated cattle will not be allowed into the food chain? We have the time to address that. Will she bear in mind the conclusions of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report adopted in the previous Parliament, by which current members of the Committee stand?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is singularly well qualified with her experience in the European Parliament to know how difficult it is to get the law changed there. It is currently illegal to vaccinate cattle and to sell or export that meat. We would have to get the 26 other member states to agree to a change in the law. We must accept that that would take many years.

Welfare of Laying Hens Directive

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

Good morning, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to see the Minister in his place. I am delighted to have secured the debate. It is a matter of note that it was requested by all the members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who deem it of great importance. The thrust of my remarks relates to the legal position and legal advice on which the Government appear to have based their decision on how to proceed when the ban on battery cages comes into effect. Effectively, the issue is when is a ban not a ban?

Directive 1999/74 on the welfare of laying hens is well known to everybody in this country and across the EU; indeed, it has been in existence for 12 years. It will take effect from 1 January 2012, when there will be a ban on what are normally known as battery cages, and only eggs laid by hens in enriched cages will be allowed. That is an historic decision, which is welcomed by all across the EU, not least consumers. Animal welfare has enjoyed growing momentum across the EU, and this is the first time the Commission has sought to introduce a ban on animal welfare grounds.

Were the ban not to take effect on 1 January, the implications for the consumer would be very serious. Consumers are very much in favour of a ban. This country’s egg industry has invested £400 million in putting new facilities in place for 1 January, and I pay tribute to all the egg producers who have made such a massive contribution, not least Yorkshire Farmhouse Eggs and others in my constituency. There are also serious implications for the next ban—on sow stalls and tethers—which is due to come into force across the EU on 1 January 2013.

I want to focus for a moment on the implications of the legal aspects of the Government’s case. As I said, the directive is due to come into force on 1 January 2012. It was agreed 12 years ago, in 1999, so egg producers across the EU have had 12 years to prepare. The directive will prohibit the use of conventional cages—commonly referred to as battery cages—which contain about five birds, with a minimum of 550 sq cm, or less than the size of a sheet of A4 paper, per bird. In December 2010, such cages accounted for 28% of all laying hens in the UK. The new enriched cages provide at least 750 sq cm per bird and have a minimum height of 44 cm. They also provide a nest, a perching space and a scratching area. In December 2010, such cages accounted for 21% of all laying hens in the UK.

The directive was intended to prohibit the marketing of eggs produced in conventional cages. Here, I turn to the semantics of what the ban relates to. In this regard, there are flaws in the Government’s legal advice, their argument and the basis on which they are proceeding. I pray in aid a letter—I am happy to share it and to leave a copy in the Library and with the Department—from Commissioner John Dalli, who is the person at the directorate-general for health and consumers responsible for implementing the ban. He wrote to the Committee on 30 November, after we had written two weeks earlier—on 14 November—asking for the ban to take effect across the EU. He states:

“Currently available data suggest that there is a risk that more than 51 million hens in at least 11 Member States will still be kept in un-enriched cages on 1 January 2012.”

He goes on to say that he will

“without undue delay propose to launch infringement proceedings early next year against those Member States that appear to not enforce the Directive.”

However, as we and the Commission know—the Committee had cause to share this with a Minister from Denmark, which will hold the EU presidency from 1 January 2012—all the Commission will do then is issue a reasoned opinion against the member states that are in default. As we all realise this morning, that will give those member states three months to reply. It will therefore be le jour de poisson—April fool’s day—1 April 2012, before legal proceedings commence against any of those member states.

In arguing against the Government’s inaction, I rely on a key paragraph from the commissioner’s letter:

“Concerning unilateral action, Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Union law. They have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

indicated assent.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister is nodding. The key phrase is that member states

“have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

I put it to the Minister that it is not for manufacturers, processers or retailers to police these things. I pay tribute to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for being the first Department to come forward with a taskforce to remove extra regulations and gold-plating. Under successive Governments, it has been expert at introducing such things, but gold-plating and the addition of extra regulations have cost our industry. It would be completely perverse to offload all the costs of policing these issues on to retailers, processers and others, when it should, as the commissioner says, be the Government’s responsibility to police the ban.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a quick comment and to congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this important issue. Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have pursued the rules and regulations with almost evangelical zeal. However, it has been reported that battery cages that are now obsolete in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have been sold to other European countries that flagrantly disobey Europe’s rules. Does the hon. Lady feel that the Government should make strong representations to Europe to ensure that such contravention of the legislation does not take place?

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I invite him to respond. It is perverse to introduce regulatory costs for manufacturers, retailers and processers at this time.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I would like to make some progress.

I put it to the Minister that he has three options before 1 January. The first is to do nothing, as he set out in his recent written statement to the House, and to let the ban lapse before it even takes effect and to offload the costs of policing processed products—not shelled eggs, but eggs in powdered, liquid and other forms. That would be unacceptable.

The second option is to take unilateral action, and the Commission clearly states that the Minister would be entirely within his rights to do so. Indeed, he said in the Government’s response to the Committee’s ninth report on the welfare of laying hens directive:

“We will be pressing to ensure that the Commission initiate infraction proceedings against Member States whose caged egg producers are non-compliant”.

He went on to say that the Government would also consider taking unilateral action:

“The Government has thoroughly investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK ban on all imports of egg and egg products which have been produced in conventional cages in other Member States”.

What has changed the Minister’s mind between the quite recent date of publication—25 November—and today? The Minister should take unilateral action, rejecting shell eggs or egg products in powdered, liquid or any other form, based on the legal letter and the legal basis of the directive, backed up by the commissioner’s response to the Committee.

The third option that I invite the Minister to consider is to tour European capitals. It is not up to members of the Committee. We had a warm response from the incoming President, the Danish Agriculture Minister, when we made a visit two weeks ago. She asked the Committee which other capitals we had visited, and which other Ministers we had met. I regret to say that I had to respond that we are not allowed out very often, so it is not really the role of the Committee. It is the role of Ministers from the 14 compliant member states to tour member states to secure—if the Minister does not want to take unilateral action—a multilateral ban on their part. There are 14 or 16 other countries—we are not entirely sure how many—who will not comply.

[Mr Paice]

I am interested to hear that my hon. Friend spoke to the new Danish Minister. Did she ask what the Minister was planning to do? I did, last week, and the answer is nothing.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted that the Minister met his counterpart, but that is not what she said to us. She said she was aware that the Commission would take action. I put it to her, as I put it to the Committee this morning, that there will be inaction for three months, while just a reasoned position is issued under the Court proceedings. When we left, that Minister—the incoming EU President—had a completely open mind. As I said to her, it is quite within the rights of the Council of Ministers to overrule the Commission and rely on a multilateral ban. That is a matter of disagreement between the Minister, the Committee and the egg industry, and it would help us this morning if the Minister provided the legal advice on which the Government depend.

In his conclusions in a written statement on 6 December the Minister mentioned marketing regulations:

“Because of a loophole in the egg marketing regulations, we cannot prohibit the marketing of any eggs produced in conventional cages from 1 January 2012 which are sent to processing (whether sent as ungraded or class B), nor can we prohibit the use of any products made from such eggs.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 17WS.]

That is not the case, and I repeat the words of Commissioner Dalli:

“Concerning unilateral action, Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Union law. They have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

The Food and Drink Federation is equally concerned and has said, in its briefing for today’s debate, that it shares concern that a number of other EU member states still do not appear ready to meet obligations first set out in the 1999 directive. It continues:

“It is also highly regrettable that the absence of mechanisms to prevent intra-community trade in non-compliant eggs exposes food manufacturers and others to the risk of inadvertently buying them.”

[Mr Paice]

They agree with us.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Minister says that retailers agree with the Government, but with the greatest of respect, retailers and processors do not agree with them. The Government are offloading the responsibility for applying the directive on to retailers, processors and the manufacturers of quiches, pizzas, cakes and other products.

[Mr Paice]

Will my hon. Friend reread what she just read out from the FDF? It clearly states that it agrees that it is a pity there is no mechanism. That is what she read out, and that is the Government’s position. The FDF agrees with the Government that there is no mechanism for us to establish the ban that she wants.

[Miss McIntosh]

That highlights the kernel of the disagreement between the Minister and the Committee. Will he explain precisely what the loophole is in the egg marketing regulations? Are they EU regulations or UK regulations implementing EU regulations? The Committee is at a disadvantage, because we do not have access to the legal advice on which the Government have based their opinion. If the Minister would be good enough, in his response, to clarify the legal position on the importation of non-compliant shell eggs for processing, liquid and powdered egg and egg products contained in prepared foods, it would be a great step forward. Will he also state precisely what loophole in the egg marketing regulations he believes allows the marketing and sale of all eggs and egg products, aside from class A eggs? Will he satisfy us this morning as to whether he really means that because only class A eggs are covered by the egg marketing regulations DEFRA has simply chosen to put that interpretation on the legislation?

As a currently non-practising lawyer, who practised law in two different law firms in Brussels, I accept that asking two lawyers for their opinion might produce two different legal opinions. It seems that the British Egg Industry Council has one legal opinion, and the Government rely on another. It would be helpful for us to learn precisely the terms of that opinion. I have quoted Commissioner Dalli’s belief, which is widely held, that the European Commission is clearly saying that the United Kingdom would be entirely within its rights to choose to prohibit the importation not just of class A shell eggs but also shell eggs destined for processing, and liquid and powdered eggs, from non-compliant sources, from 1 January 2012.

The Commission infraction proceedings will take place only from 1 January, with a reasoned opinion against the 10 or 11 remaining member states that do not comply with the directive. That will mean that no reference to the Court of Justice, or legal proceedings against the ban, can happen until 1 April 2012. The consequences of failing to act are huge. Bearing in mind the fact that we all—consumers, manufacturers and parliamentarians—welcome a ban on battery cages, the consequences of failing to act cannot be quantified.

Consumers were led to believe that the ban would be in place from 1 January 2012. Egg producers have made an enormous sacrifice and invested hugely—£400 million —in enriched cages. There will be huge consequences for producers who are disadvantaged. As to what the costs will be to the manufacturers, processors and retailers who are being asked to check the eggs on import, to make sure that they are compliant, perhaps the Government would like to share a figure with the House this morning. Perhaps we should also look ahead to 1 January 2013.

When the Conservatives were last in power, we imposed a unilateral ban on sow stalls and tethers, which disadvantaged our pig sector and has led to consumers buying cheaper cuts of pigmeat produced with less animal welfare-friendly methods since the early ’90s. I want an assurance from the Minister that a level playing field is not elusive, that we can achieve it, that we can allow our egg producers to compete across the European Union and that we will not accept any imports of shell eggs or any other products from 1 January 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we have sought our own legal advice. I was going to mention that issue later, but I am happy to address it now. Please forgive me, Ms Osborne, if I read from my notes verbatim, but I need to get it right. I must stress that I am not reading out direct legal advice. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to say to him that I have answered his parliamentary question and that I suspect that he will get the answer today. As I am sure that he knows, I am afraid that the answer is no. Governments do not publish legal advice given to Ministers. That was not the case under the previous Government, and it is not the case under this Government.

The treaty on the functioning of the EU prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports between member states and all measures that have a similar effect, with limited exceptions to that general rule, including where they are necessary on animal health or human health grounds. The advice that we have received shows that it is extremely unlikely that a court would extend those exceptions to animal welfare grounds in these circumstances. The treaty also states that any restriction of trade must not constitute arbitrary discrimination.

Given the traceability issues around distinguishing between imported eggs that have been reared in conventional cages in other member states and those that have not—I will come back to traceability in a moment—any ban would have to be on imports of all eggs from a particular country, whether reared in conventional cages or not. That would clearly penalise compliant producers in other member states, which runs contrary to the principle of the free movement of goods. The hon. Member for Ogmore and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the ban on sow stalls, which we implemented a long time ago in this country. If we apply the logic of the argument that we are discussing to that, we would have had to introduce a ban on all pigmeat, including that not introduced in sow stalls. Neither the Government at the time nor the previous Labour Government believed that they had the power to do that. It is quite clear that we do not have the legal basis to take such action.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for sharing the advice with us. The sad fact is that if we claimed there was an animal health issue with shelled eggs or their products, we could reject them. I submit to the Minister that the legal basis on which we can rely for either a unilateral or multilateral ban is the EU directive coming into force from 1 January, which finds its legal base in the treaty. We are breaking new ground here. This is the first time that the Commission has imposed a community-wide ban on animal welfare grounds. I therefore submit that the legal instrument is the directive. I ask the Minister to respond to John Dalli’s comments that I read out about having the power and duty to keep products produced illegally off our markets, either unilaterally or, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has said, multilaterally. I cannot accept that there are no grounds for a ban, because the EU directive is the legal instrument.

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is right, but she needs to read that legal instrument to see what powers it gives member states to introduce a ban. The fact is that it does not give those powers. The Commissioner has been through this over and over again. I have had private meetings with him and with others as well. He is absolutely adamant that there are no powers available to him or member states to introduce the ban in the way in which my hon. Friend has advocated

I hope that I can clarify the matter by coming to traceability, which is right at the heart of the issue. Before getting to that, I shall finish my point about the Commission’s role. Once Commissioner Dalli realised that there was going to be a big problem, the Commission started looking for a robust enforcement approach that would avoid a large number of producers having to close down their operations. More importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has said, the Commissioner also wanted to avoid the destruction of millions and millions of eggs, which clearly would not have been right when many people are struggling to make ends meet.

At the same time, the Commissioner wanted to protect producers who have complied with the ban. He came up with the concept of what has been described as a gentlemen’s agreement, which does not have a legal basis. Most of those member states who were expecting to be compliant did not like the idea. Those who were not compliant reluctantly agreed to the idea. I took the view that, although we did not want any slippage in the timetable, we had to face up to the reality that there would be non-compliant eggs and therefore something had to be done. In fact, the gentlemen’s agreement died. There was clearly no prospect of a gentlemen’s agreement, and it has not been progressed.

The Commission has acted on the practical things for which the UK has been pressing. As several hon. Members have said, it has begun pre-infraction procedures. More importantly, it has also asked for the action plans from all non-compliant member states to contain measures to accelerate compliance. In answer to the hon. Member for Ogmore, its intention is for a monthly report of those plans to be given to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, which is known as SCoFCAH for short.

[Mr Paice]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Obviously, I cannot tell him what the risk is. This is an extremely important point and, to go back in history, his Government took such a view about earlier issues when the boot was on the other foot. It is very difficult for someone to argue that other people are not complying with the law if they then proceed to break it themselves. Someone would lose a great deal of moral standing if they did that.

I want to make a final point about the Commission before I come back to the key issues. The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office missions will be targeted from the beginning of 2012 at non-compliant member states and, to help that, all member states have been asked to submit lists of compliant producers. We have asked for all those measures, because they will give some protection to compliant producers in the UK and across the EU. Clearly, that is not enough, which is why we have said that we reserve the right to take our own actions. Yes, we have thoroughly investigated the possibility of unilateral action and, when I have said in the past that we were considering the matter, I was saying it exactly as it was. I think that hon. Members who know me well enough will know that I would be keen to take action, but, unfortunately, the legal advice that I have had from within, plus the statements from the Commission to which I have referred, have led me to believe that we cannot do so. That is partly because of the practical issues and difficulties in enforcing such an approach.

[Miss McIntosh]

rose—

[Mr Paice]

Let me continue, because I am addressing my hon. Friend’s point about the issue of traceability. Perhaps I can also mention the point about the egg marketing regulations, because the two matters are interlinked. The answer to her question about the egg marketing regulations is that class A are shell eggs and they have to be marked with a producer number and a mark defining the production method—in other words, it would be code 3 from a battery cage or, from January, from an enriched cage.

Class B eggs, however, which are mainly used in manufacturing, are not required to be marked with anything—with either a producer number or a code—so there is no traceability, which is the key point. If we were to introduce a ban, it would have to be on all non-grade A eggs or on all powder and/or liquid. We could not differentiate them, which is the nub of the challenge that we faced. Because of that, as I suggested earlier in relation to the legal advice, we would have been accused of a discriminatory approach and would certainly have been in breach of the legislation.

[Miss McIntosh]

Will the Minister confirm whether the marketing regulations are European Union regulations or UK regulations? If they are EU regulations, we, as a country, would have had the opportunity to query them and, presumably, amend them when they were drafted. Will the Minister comment on that? I look forward to his response to other questions, but what will be the cost to the industry—to processors, retailers and manufacturers—of doing what the Government are asking it to do from 1 January?

[Mr Paice]

They are European regulations—there is no question about that—as I am sure the advisers to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will have confirmed to my hon. Friend. We have, in recent months, asked the Commission—and we will continue to ask it—to amend those regulations. That has not happened so far, and I must confess that the Commission officials with whom we have had detailed discussions do not seem overly keen on the idea, so we are faced with having to operate within the existing legislation.

On the issue of what exactly is an offence, it will be an offence to keep hens in those cages, and we would prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. That is clear. However, it will not necessarily be an offence to be in possession of an egg from an illegal cage, but it would be an offence to try to pass it off as an egg from a legal cage. It is important to be clear about that.

On the efforts that we have made within the constraints, the hon. Member for Ogmore challenged me about the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency and my description of the use of ultraviolet light. He is right that the technique has never been used directly in the way that we propose, but, as he has also said, it has been used to identify eggs from caged hens within batches that have been described as free range or barn eggs. Not until now has it been specifically used to identify different types of caged egg production, but we have had it independently validated, and I have looked at it myself. When an egg is laid, the shell is momentarily a bit soft and takes an imprint of the material on which it is laid. If it is laid on wire, it comes through clearly under ultraviolet light, which is obvious. If it is laid on any sort of softer egg-laying surface, which is a requirement of an enriched cage, that comes through as a completely different pattern.

I must also make it clear, however, that the use of ultraviolet light is simply a marker for us and would not, by itself, be the basis of prosecution. If any suspect eggs are found, we will ask the country of origin to confirm our suspicions about whether the producer—do not forget that the information will be on the egg—is compliant or not. That is how the system will operate. If the eggs are found to be from an illegal system, they will be prevented from being marketed as class A eggs and sent for processing—that is, as I have said, downgraded to class B. I have now explained the point about marketing regulations.

As of today, as far as we can establish, the average price per dozen of class A caged eggs, which are, of course, legal at the moment, is about 54p, while the average price per dozen of class B eggs is 29.4p. That is nearly 25p per dozen cheaper, which is close to 50% of the price. That is a massive price differential. I cannot believe that anybody will seek to import eggs from non-compliant cages and risk losing half the value of the eggs if we detect them. We have to be sensible. The economic impact on anybody who has their eggs downgraded will be absolutely massive, and I do not believe that they would risk it happening. As far as shell eggs are concerned, our measures will be sufficient.

Let me turn to the understandably more concerning issue of processed eggs, which, as has rightly been said, represent about half the imports of egg and egg products into this country and approximately 9% of total consumption. As I have said, they are much less easy to trace, because the eggs are not required to carry any identification. That loophole causes us immense problems, which is why we have been pressing, and will continue to press, to get it closed. In the absence of that, we have had to use what opportunity we have, which, as I have said, is to work with the industry. The hon. Member for Ogmore is right and that is why I published a list in my statement, and was happy to do so, unusually, on the basis of name and shame. I am happy to update the list and, as of today, can add two more processors—Bumble Hole Foods Ltd and D Wise Ltd. That now means that nine of the major processors are on board, reducing still further the likelihood of eggs from conventional cages or their products being imported.

That is the situation. I am approaching the end of my allocated time and have almost finished addressing the issues, but I am conscious that I also need to respond to a number of questions. In the absence of the ability to instigate a ban, we have tried, as I have explained, to throttle the market. That is what it boils down to—we have tried to make sure that there is no market in the UK for illegally produced eggs or egg products.

I have dealt with the issue of legal advice. To return to my earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, I have been in contact with like-minded countries in the EU. In the week before I made the statement, I telephoned them myself and not one of them is proposing any action yet. As far as we can establish, we are the only country proposing any measures from 1 January. Of course, I continue to work with them and, if there are prospects for more unified action, I will take it, but, as I have said, they are not minded to take action.

I have mentioned the regular monthly updates to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Ogmore, I will ensure that, somehow, that is brought to the House’s attention. I cannot give him the information about non-compliant imports, because of the issue of traceability, which I have mentioned. We do not know whether such imports are non-compliant, and we are trying to ensure that they are not. The European Commission cannot impose financial penalties, which is a matter for the courts following infraction proceedings. On the industry’s issues, it has not provided us with any form of costings. We are open about that. I am sure that if the costings had been onerous, the industry would have been quick to tell us.

Finally, I fully understand the importance of the issue. We have tried very hard to use the weapons available to us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am pleased to report, if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard, that the Government are announcing Government buying standards at the highest level, commensurate with the Olympic standard, which is considered to be the relevant level of sustainability. Across Government, we will procure fish only from sustainable sources.

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

Will my ministerial Friend agree that one of the most exciting aspects of the proposed reforms is regional control? Will he strain every sinew to ensure that we end the exclusive competence of the EU in this regard and allow regional fisheries to control their own waters?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

All that has happened so far—we will discuss this at our meeting on 7 December—is that the Government have proposed that the NAO take over from the Audit Commission solely responsibility for the preparation and maintenance of the code of practice, which sets a framework for the audit of local bodies, together with associated guidance for local auditors. The NAO will also be able, when reporting to Parliament on the activities of central Departments, to examine the impact of policies administered by local bodies. The NAO is making preparations for those potential areas of work. We will give it sufficient resources to enable it to do that work responsibly and properly.

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

When the National Audit Office produces excellent reports, such as the recent report on flood defences, would my hon. Friend consider allowing the Select Committees concerned to debate their contents and conclusions, rather than just the Public Accounts Committee?

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. She knows that I was, in a previous incarnation, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. We were keen, and remain keen, for the National Audit Office to extend its work so that it reports not just to the Public Accounts Committee but to all Select Committees. I am happy to take her suggestion back to the National Audit Office.

Fisheries

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

May I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), on securing this timely debate? The Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair, hopes that we might return to debate the work it is currently undertaking on this very subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will follow the direction of travel of the current EU negotiations, which seems very positive indeed. These are ground breaking and should command the support of all member states. The challenge to the Minister who will be leading these negotiations for the whole of the United Kingdom is to ensure that it is not just the northern member states that support these ground-breaking proposals from the Commission, as it is important for the southern member states to do so as well.

At the outset, I draw the House’s attention to the Select Committee’s initial report, “Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy: Domestic Fisheries Management”, which was adopted on 18 May. We urge the Government to continue the work to find a market for less popular fish. I am delighted to see that that is part of Commissioner Damanaki’s current thinking. It is also important to implement the excellent work done under the previous and the present Government on “Project 50%”. Fantastic work was done in a short period of time to reduce discards by employing more selective gear. We would like to see that project pushed out widely across English fisheries.

We press for a reduction in discards as a key element in the current common fisheries policy negotiations and we want to ensure that the interests of the under 10 metre fleet are represented in them. There is common ground in what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said about the eye-watering lack of scientific evidence. We must have the means to improve the scientific evidence before we agree any further round of reform.

I would like to sound a note of caution to the Minister—in a personal capacity, if I may. I think it is misleading for the UK to talk about under 10 metre boats when the European Union talks about under 12 metre boats. Will the Minister address the issue of whether we are disadvantaging our own fishermen in that regard?

In representing the six families who fish out of Filey Coble Landing and all who fish the Yorkshire coast from Scarborough, Whitby and Bridlington, I urge the Minister to reflect very carefully indeed before contemplating for the UK any introduction of a quota for lobster, crab and shellfish. I believe that the Minister is going forward in absolutely the right way by looking at pilot schemes. It has been put to me by the local fishermen that they are excluded at the moment from the cod and other quotas and that they are doing very nicely on a sustainable basis from lobster, crab and shellfish, so they do not wish to see their incomes penalised or jeopardised in any way.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that we have not seen enough flesh on the bones of the Commission’s proposals. That is causing great anxiety. We need to know how the European fisheries fund will be replaced, and in particular how it will apply to active fishermen and coastal communities. I should like to know how the Minister thinks that we will navigate around the legal base, and how regionalisation will work.

This is the first occasion on which co-decision will rule the operation of these ground-breaking negotiations, so let me end my speech on a positive note. I hope for a maximum sustainable yield, an end to discards, and regionalisation of the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome this timely debate. It is important that we set out some red lines before the December Council meeting so that the Minister is emboldened to make representations there on behalf of our industry, which is very important to coastal towns and villages around the entire United Kingdom.

In October there was a significant displacement of the scallop fishing effort from the Irish sea on to the north Antrim coast because British scallop dredgers had exhausted their area VII effort pot of 2011. That effort pot was agreed in the late 1990s under what was called the western waters regime. Uptake of it has accelerated because a growing number of vessels have diversified into the scallop fishery to escape restrictions introduced in other fisheries, such as the long-term cod recovery plan and the western channel sole recovery plan. Also, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is considering recommendations for a chain of marine-protected areas, which would have to be mirrored by the Minister’s colleagues in the devolved Administrations. That could create further displacement.

It is easy to become confused by all these issues, and I do not envy the Minister’s responsibilities in having to deal with what is a huge range of very complex and interconnected areas. Yet, as I heard when I was chairman of our agriculture Committee in Northern Ireland, and as I regularly hear from my colleagues in Parliament and fishermen across the country, there is concern about how the common fisheries policy operates, and people are saying, “Enough is enough.”

The Minister’s website carries a colourful photograph of a fishing boat he saw on his travels. On the vessel’s side there is a picture of a Tasmanian devil, which is represented as a trawler skipper who is being questioned by a fisheries officer. He asks the skipper, “What are you landing today?” The skipper replies, “One box of whiting and six boxes of paperwork.” [Laughter.] We laugh, but we know that our fishing fleet is hampered by red tape and paperwork, and that that paperwork comes from one place and one place only: Brussels. We need to recognise that enough is enough; this has got to stop. We hope the Minister will be emboldened to stand up against the weight of EU bureaucracy that has been created.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am carefully following the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and I welcome much of what he says. Does he not accept that if we were to introduce a UK register, which I believe the Minister is minded to do, that would cut through a lot of the bureaucracy and we would find out who is fishing in UK waters?

[Ian Paisley]

That is an interesting proposal, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response; I see that he is writing a note as he wishes to respond to it.

Do we really believe that a solution to the problems of paperwork or discards will be delivered by a commissioner who, in my view, is led by media hype, and by a Commission that, together with the other EU institutions, clearly wishes to exert even more influence over member states?

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

As someone who loves bats and is a reasonably regular churchgoer, I suppose that I am qualified to talk about this. There is a serious point: of course, we want to abide by the habitats directive and, in most cases, working with Natural England, we can resolve these issues locally, but it would be ridiculous if churches that have been used for worship for hundreds of years become unusable owing to a too-close following of the directive. There must be a common-sense way forward. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend in his capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner to ensure that we have sensible policies on the issue.

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

At St Hilda’s church in a parish near Thornton-le-Dale parish, the bats are allowed to use the church but the congregation is not. Have we not reached a ridiculous state of affairs when bats have greater protection than the congregation?

[Richard Benyon]

I am aware of the issue at St Hilda’s. If that really is the case, we have reached an absolute impasse. We must consider finding an alternative means to provide a place where bats can roost and people can worship. That is one of the reasons why the Government have put all wildlife legislation in the Law Commission’s hands—to make absolutely certain that we are not gold-plating our interpretation of the directive. I assure my hon. Friend that I will work with her and any other Member if they find examples where we have hit the buffers and cannot find a way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

4. What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the effects of bats on churches; and if he will make a statement.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

I am sure that many in the House will be concerned about the damage done by bats in church buildings. Although all species of bats have statutory protection, considerable damage has been caused to church fabric by bat droppings and bat urine.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend is familiar with, and has taken up, the case of St Hilda’s church, but it is unacceptable that the congregation is not allowed to pray and worship in the church because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England are taking a leisurely pace to exclude the bats from the church. The bats would not be excluded completely, but would have a different access point. May I ask him to use his good offices to speed this procedure along so that the congregation can worship normally in St Hilda’s church?

[Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend and the whole House will have heard the comments at the Dispatch Box earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I think that the House will recognise that he acknowledged that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, will work with the church authorities, Natural England and all of us in trying to strike a much better balance and in making appropriate representations to the Law Commission to ensure that we do not gold-plate the habitats directive in a way that prejudices people against bats.

Flood and Water Management

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

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

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Walker; it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome the Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from later.

I am delighted that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has secured this debate. I thank my fellow members of the Committee for their hard work on the report and its conclusions. We had some powerful evidence, reflecting the importance of this important policy area and the human consequences when flooding occurs. I should also like to record our thanks to our expert advisers for their help in preparing the report and subsequent work, particularly our current work on the natural environment White Paper.

The Committee published its report in December 2010. We had many written memorandums of evidence and a number of evidence sessions. The fact that it is our first report of the new Parliament demonstrates the importance that we and the Committee attach to water and flooding issues. To help hon. Members, particularly the Minister for his summing up, I will focus on the points of concern that have emerged from the Government’s response and on matters outstanding from both our Committee report and, indeed, legislation pending since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was passed.

Water and flooding are key issues raised by constituents with MPs. I am sadly all too familiar with flooding, both in my former constituency, Vale of York, and my current constituency, Thirsk, Malton and Filey. The report reflects the fact that UK weather presents us with twin challenges of flooding and drought, as well as challenges to the water industry and consumers that include affordability and the rising cost of water bills and many other bills. As consumers of water, our constituents need assurances that they will continue to receive consistent, clean, affordable supplies. As householders and businesses, they need to be confident that their properties can be protected as far as is reasonably practicable from risks of flooding.

The increasing likelihood of severe weather events such as floods and drought is also a challenge for the farming community. Many farmers and landowners are involved in managing flood risks, which comes at some cost. I will share with the Minister concerns that have been raised in the run-up to today’s debate. In preparing our report, the Committee received evidence from the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. In particular, the NFU is concerned that land should not be seen as a free resource, particularly if used as temporary storage for water in times of flood, causing loss of crops as well as other losses.

Water has been a key issue to the EFRA Committee. The previous Committee, on which I also had the privilege to serve, looked into the response to the 2007 floods and the Flood and Water Management Bill, which was enacted in 2010 and was considered to be the essential first step in putting in place a comprehensive and consistent framework for managing flooding and early work on key aspects of water management. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I sat as a shadow Minister on the Bill Committee and followed its passage extremely closely.

I will sum up the challenges that remain. Partnership funding for flood defences has come on stream for the first time this year.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

We spend a lot of time talking about flood defences. Does the hon. Lady agree that general maintenance, dredging and all that goes with it are just as vital as the flood defences?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I know Workington and Maryport extremely well, and our hearts go out to those colleagues, particularly in Cumbria, who suffered in the floods. If he will permit me, I will mention the role that farmers, landowners and, in particular, internal drainage boards play in dredging and maintenance. In the visits that I have made over time to areas that have been badly affected by flooding in my constituency, other parts of Yorkshire, Cumbria and elsewhere, I have heard anecdotal evidence of an absence of maintenance and dredging. I was shocked to hear recently that Cod beck, which caused the flooding in Thirsk and where flood defences have still not been built—the Minister might put that on the wish list that he will take away with him today; we are still anxious to get the flood defences built in Thirsk—has not had any maintenance for the past two or three years.

I might go further than my Committee colleagues and our conclusions in the report. I would like the internal drainage board to be allowed to agree a programme of maintenance and dredging with the Environment Agency. On the recommendations, it was the wish of Sir Michael Pitt that there would be an annual maintenance and dredging programme on the Environment Agency website, which the public would be able to see. We have established, however, that the moneys given by internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency, not least in my own region, are not being used for dredging, for a number of reasons. I want that money to stay with the IDBs for a programme agreed with the Environment Agency, but for the IDBs to use their resources and their engineers to maintain main watercourses.

I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which has contacted me to express its disappointment that no new internal drainage boards have been created yet. I know that the subject is close to the Minister’s heart, so when he sums up, will he tell us the position on the creation of new internal drainage boards? All those bodies have a role to play, but it should not be the Public Bodies Bill that sets out the legislative provisions; they should all form part of the water Bill, which we anticipate keenly.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I support that request and wish to reinforce the recommendation in the Committee’s original report. On IDBs, the Government response says that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is

“considering what changes should be made to funding arrangements”.

I hope that that review will happen sooner rather than later. IDBs do a fantastic job from the ground up, with a real understanding of the topography of areas such as Holderness, which I represent. I want local people to be able to hold the money and commission effective flood protection, whether from the Environment Agency or another body. I am convinced, as is my hon. Friend, that putting it in the hands of local people rather than the agency will be more cost-effective.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and for his invitation, which I was able to accept, to visit some of the areas that had been affected in Beverley.

Partnership funding for flood defences, which was introduced only this year, will of course be limited to the amounts that can be raised. The level of funding is the key to the success of our report and the message that we gave, as well as the success of the 2010 Act itself. I have a direct question for the Minister on the business of funding, particularly the levy-raising powers. I and many other hon. Members represent deeply rural constituencies. A concern has been expressed that, where there is not an established local levy, there may be constraints on the amount that can be raised. The Minister must realise that there is a limit to how much any individual local authority can afford because, as we note in the report, budgets have been reduced as a result of the comprehensive spending review.

We welcome the fact that regulations on the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains have proceeded, but the Minister must respond to the concerns expressed in our report, which are reflected across the country, about how we can recover the costs, which are either non-funded or underfunded. It will be helpful if the Minister responds to the water companies’ direct concern about that.

Colleagues would be disappointed if I did not mention sustainable drainage systems. We need to know the commencement date for the relevant provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Are we really looking at a delay until 2012, and if so, do we as parliamentarians accept that? I put it to the Minister that we do not. I do not think it would be appropriate to have a phased introduction of sustainable drainage systems. The country is crying out for sustainable drainage systems to be introduced with a specific target date—I hope, by the end of this year. When will the regulations be laid and what consultation period is required? The time needed for preparation makes those provisions coming into effect this year a very tight timetable, and there is concern that they will be postponed until next year.

I want to place on the record my views on misconnections and the ending of the automatic right to connect. Sir Michael Pitt was extremely clear and categorical on that. I am not sure that we have reached an end to the automatic right to connect. I would like to make water companies statutory consultees on the same basis as the Environment Agency is. Many water companies have loose arrangements with the planning authorities, but it is important that we enshrine that in law. Water companies should be made statutory consultees on any future planning applications to limit potential misconnections as far as possible. I touched on the maintenance of watercourses in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), but I repeat that we need as many engineers as possible and that we should use the internal drainage boards where they exist.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case on many fronts. Planning and misconnections are a considerable problem around the country, and a number of misconnections have been made in my area, but would creating an obligation for water companies to be statutory consultees in relation to planning applications make a difference to the builders putting in the equipment? The rules are very clear: they should connect to the appropriate foul water or surface water sewer. The key surely is to have better monitoring afterwards through building regulations and to ensure that the plans and specifications have been followed.

[Miss McIntosh]

I think we need both approaches. The system is failing because of the lack of consultation with water companies. Because they are not statutory consultees, they are being asked to link up to new developments where they do not think it is appropriate. One example is a proposal to build 300 houses in Filey on an area that is prone to flooding; the water company has said that there will be great difficulty in connecting, but I do not see where the planning inspector can overrule the local authority. The Committee’s key message was that more than 5 million properties in England are at risk of flooding—that is a Government and insurance industry figure—and, at the same time, the UK faces increasing economic and environmental challenges to securing clean, reliable and affordable water supplies.

The natural environment White Paper, “The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature,” has been well received and, as I say, the Committee is doing a substantial piece of work on it, but we are severely disappointed that the water White Paper has been delayed. Despite its importance, it has not been published within two months of the natural environment White Paper. I had the opportunity to express our concerns to the Prime Minister and to say that the Committee does not want any slippage in the introduction of the water Bill, which will be as important to the water industry as the Water Act 1989. I know it is not within the Minister’s gift, but I hope that the Government business managers listening will make time available early next year for that substantial piece of legislation. I also hope that the Minister will be able to assure hon. Members today that we will receive the White Paper—no doubt, with great interest—well before the turn of the year. We want an holistic approach to flood and water management, and the natural environment White Paper and the water White Paper both have a substantial contribution to make.

The extended parliamentary Session—the first to run for 18 months—must not be used as an excuse to delay the introduction of legislation if the regulatory changes are to be made without disrupting the water price-setting process. The Minister has an opportunity to set out this afternoon the Government’s timetable for finalising the provisions of the 2010 Act that have not yet been commenced.

It is an understatement to say that the White Paper is eagerly anticipated, and we look forward to receiving it without further delay. Many strands of work are involved: we expect it to look at the Cave review of competition, the Walker review of household charging, the Gray review of Ofwat and the implementation of EU directives such as the water framework directive. Time will not permit me to go into many of the concerns that have been raised about the directive, but suffice it to say that many of the water companies and, indeed, many farmers and landowners are extremely concerned about how it will take effect.

There is good news. Since our report was published, we have had the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on water affordability, which followed up from the Budget statement on 23 March. That demonstrated that the Government are committed to supporting households with water affordability pressures and households in areas with particularly high water bills, such as the south-west. I am sure my hon. Friends from that area will have plenty to say on that.

We also welcome the reforms to the WaterSure scheme, the approach to social tariffs and the options for additional Government spending to provide further support. Water companies would find it incredibly helpful if the Government—obviously, not DEFRA but another Department—could, on a confidential basis, give the details of people on benefits to the water companies, so that they can earmark and target those most at risk and those who would most benefit from a social tariff. The consultation closed on 17 June, and we now expect the Government to introduce their proposals.

The natural environment White Paper will make a clear contribution to valuing water more effectively. We heard from a number of witnesses in June and we will look further at the matter in the autumn. The national ecosystem assessment that was published in June shows that there is a great body of work to build on.

I know that the Minister would be disappointed if I did not express my disappointment at the failure of the Pickering pilot scheme for flood defences to go ahead. The Woodland Trust and others are enthusiastic about more natural means of flood defence, such as the planting of trees to slow the water down. I hope that the Minister will not feel constrained and will tell us today where we are on reservoir provision. I make a plea on behalf of many constituents, and I am sure many in the House as well: time after time, the Environment Agency seems to get carried away with over-engineered, over-expensive and over-fancy flood defence projects that fall flat on their face at the first hurdle. That is why we do not have the flood defences we need in Thirsk or in Pickering. The Pickering pilot project was innovative and looked at more natural means of flood defence, but it will not now go ahead. The money, particularly from the local authority, is ring-fenced only until next year. I am sure that the Minister would think that it was tragic if we were to lose that project for ever because of delay owing to the Environment Agency not knowing that the flood storage system it had in mind constituted a reservoir.

I again express the Committee’s support for sustainable drainage systems. Local authorities have expressed concern that they be properly resourced, and the Minister has the opportunity today to set their mind at ease. They have to be given the financial resources they need. I have mentioned water companies being statutory consultees.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I wonder whether the Committee looked at bringing in national flood protection standards. As soon as flooding moves out of the public eye, and in the face of financial difficulties, funding tends to be cut, with a long-term deleterious impact. Holland has statutory national flood standards, which trigger investment and ensure that standards are maintained. Do we not need some fundamental reworking of protections in law to force Governments and funding bodies to ensure that we have a sustainable system? I fear that if we go for a period without severe floods, we will create the conditions for worse floods in the future.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. Why has there been a delay in the consultation on and implementation of national standards for SUDS? Many have expressed to me their real concern about that. When will the provisions on SUDS be implemented?

[Tony Cunningham]

If the work is not done, large numbers of people and properties will either have huge excessive insurance to pay or will not be able to get insurance. The worry of not having one’s own house insured is a terrible burden on people. That must be noted.

[Miss McIntosh]

I will take that opportunity to bring forward my comments on floods insurance. There is an urgent need for the Government to agree with the insurance industry that when the statement of principles expires in 2013, there will be an insurance regime in place. Flood protection and resilience measures taken by householders and businesses should be reflected in a lower premium. The Government and the insurance industry both have a role to play in reducing premiums where that work has been done.

A number of challenges remain. Central to the White Paper is taking forward the three reviews that I referred to earlier: to ensure regulatory stability; to keep down the cost of capital while ensuring maximum efficiencies in the industry; to introduce changes to charging and embed the wider value of water prices in a way that is acceptable to consumers; and to meet a raft of environment challenges, including EU requirements. Of all the directives—on water framework, on urban waste water and on river basin management requirements—it is the water framework directive that is causing most concern. In the Committee’s view, there is strong evidence that it does not offer an effective means of delivering environmental outcomes within such tight resource—that is, funding—constraints. As ever, we need to work with our European partners to find agreement on how to improve the framework directive regime.

The Minister needs to respond to conclusions 45 and 46 and recognise the role of farming and agriculture in flood defences. There was a clause permitting arrangements for financial support for flood protection measures, and the Minister himself has acknowledged that proper compensation is owed to landowners. How will the role played by farmers be recognised? We are concerned about the transitional arrangements for the phasing out of regional development agencies. What are the arrangements for future payments under the rural development programme for England for those types of protection measures? There is concern about who to apply to. The RDA teams are still in place, but do farmers apply to DEFRA or to a regionally located unit? We need clarification.

These are challenging times for all those involved in flood and water management. We welcome the Government’s taking an holistic view and their attempts to link the strands together, but we have expressed concern about resources, reservoir safety regimes and the need for their reform, SUDS and flood insurance. I welcome the opportunity afforded by today’s debate and look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say and the Minister’s conclusions. What is most important, however, is the cross-party support and recognition of how significant floods are to local constituencies, and how much work we still need to do to prevent future floods from happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am secretary to the Fire Brigades Union.

I will focus on the statutory responsibility for flood preparation and flood response, although I almost feel that I should apologise for raising the matter so consistently in recent years. After the 2007 floods, the Pitt review was undertaken; its early recommendations were fairly straightforward, despite what the Committee calls some vagueness. The report recommended:

“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.”

That recommendation was fairly clear, but, referring to what the report had to say about preparation and rescue, Pitt added that

“the Review strongly believes that a statutory duty is the best means to achieve these outcomes.”

He continued:

“Whilst it is conceivable that non-statutory approaches, such as those proposed by the CFRA”—

chief fire and rescue adviser, Ken Knight—

“might work, such approaches do not provide the certainty the public expect and the Review believes is needed.”

All the evidence demonstrates that the original Pitt recommendations were correct. Despite some additional moneys being invested in equipment and in some elements of training, the evidence that the Committee received from the FBU was that things had gone backwards rather than forwards. Not enough was being invested in training exercises or in the necessary equipment. It should be blindingly obvious to those who have served in local government that if a statutory duty is not placed upon a particular local government role or function, it is no longer a priority at budget time. Statutory duties always gain priority when it comes to the allocation of resources.

I am pleased that the Committee heard more evidence on the subject, and recommendation 3 reinforces what Pitt had said. The Committee said at paragraph 26:

“We are concerned that the lack of a statutory duty for Fire and Rescue Authorities could jeopardise their flood preparation and response work, given pressures on them to direct their limited funding towards fulfilling nondiscretionary duties.”

We had hoped that the Labour Government would legislate on the matter, but what legislation we had did not deal with the question of statutory responsibility.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his declaration of interest. Is the problem in his view a matter of funding, the responsibility for which no longer lies with DEFRA but with the Department for Communities and Local Government? We stand by our recommendation, but does he think that we should go further? We say that the matter should be included in the funding formula applied to the emergency services. Does he share our disappointment that that has not been done immediately?

[John McDonnell]

The Pitt review identified two areas: clarity of leadership in a particular response and resources, because a statutory duty gives security of access to those resources. I take the view that the statutory duty needs to be introduced as quickly as possible to tackle both matters. There should be more clarity about local government’s responsibilities; flowing from that will be both the resources and the clarity of the approach on the allocation of those resources for both Government and local fire authorities.

Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to legislate, but they set up various exercises and consultations that will eventually come to fruition. After the general election, the coalition agreement made reference to the Pitt review. It committed the coalition to taking forward

“the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk”—

in other words, implementing the recommendation of the Pitt review with regard to the statutory duty. The previous Government undertook Exercise Watermark. Although they did not specifically undertake to provide the analysis for a case study for a statutory duty, we were advised by Ministers responding to parliamentary questions that the exercise would inform the Government’s decision about whether statutory responsibility would be required. The interim report from Exercise Watermark told us that there would be a final report at the end of September. Encouragingly, it also said:

“Feedback from the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) suggested the statutory duty for flood rescue should be co-ordinated by the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) with appropriate funding.”

The interim report indicated that we were moving towards a statutory duty being introduced by the Government.

We then also had the recommendations from the fire futures forum, which advises Government on general safety issues, including fire and flooding. It discussed the options for future reform of the fire service and called for the implementation of a statutory duty, but with some caveats on where the funding for such work should come from.

A consensus seems to have been built up in recent years, stemming from the 2007 floods and culminating in the lessons learned from the 2009 floods, that there should be a statutory responsibility. We simply await the outcome of the final report on Exercise Watermark. Will the Minister confirm whether that report will reach us by the end of September? If not, will he intervene—perhaps in this memorial way that seems to be being pushed to establish his reputation—to ensure that the report is finalised as speedily as possible?

If the report fails to recommend a statutory duty for fire and rescue authorities, there will be many who will be extremely anxious that this is a missed opportunity to clarify duties and responsibilities and to secure funding. If it does recommend a statutory responsibility, I urge the Minister—I am sure that Members in this Chamber will assist him all they can—to lobby others to ensure that there is parliamentary time to enable such legislative activity to take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Main.

The report was very much a team effort on the part of the Committee, and it was a very good choice to allow us to debate it. The debate has shown the breadth of support geographically and among the many hon. Members present. The conclusion is that much has been done but there is still much to do.

I hope that the Minister will extend the “yes, if” to the gross inconsistency at the heart of Government policy on reservoirs and reservoir safety. That absolute inconsistency must be addressed, in particular if farmers want to use reservoirs for storage, instead of abstraction, which a number of hon. Members might wish to explore. I hope that that will be reviewed.

I welcome the positive comments from the Minister on the role of internal drainage boards in maintenance. If we want an example of the big society, we need look no further.

I am minded to support the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the lack of a statutory duty. I have tracked the issue for some time, and we must remember that a young man was killed in Hull because all the emergency services that came, in succession, simply did not have the equipment. In sorrow more than anger, everyone turned to the fire crew to cut that young man to safety, but he died of hypothermia. The reason why the statutory duty is so important is that the money will follow the duty. If we cannot provide that, there will be further deaths, which would be most regrettable.

The insurance issues are time-framed. On planning, we need clear guidance as to how building on floodplains lies with the new national policy framework, but there are many challenges ahead. The Minister singularly failed to give us a date for the water Bill, but we look forward to the water White Paper. On a positive note, I add that we have had a good discussion this afternoon. The Minister is aware of the work that needs to be done, and we are there to support him in any way possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bovine TB

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

This is a very serious matter and I do not think it lends itself to political point scoring. I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged that this is a devastating problem. Her Government had the opportunity to do more to address it when they were in office.

The question of the science is an incredibly important and pivotal point. When the previous Government set up the randomised badger culling trial, the initial results showed that within the culled area, there was a significant reduction in TB breakdowns in herds. The perimeter of the area was where the perturbation effect was apparent. The science has continued to be monitored by Christl Donnelly, who has published and had peer reviewed findings on the long-term effect of the decision to cull badgers as a method of reducing the incidence of TB. In the longer term, the reduction in TB herd breakdowns is sustained within the culled area and the negative perturbation effect falls away 12 to 18 months after the culling ceases. That is the science and those are the facts. The scientists agree on the facts. I encourage the hon. Lady to read Christl Donnelly’s most recent publication.

The vaccine deployment trials, to which the hon. Lady referred, were trials not of the vaccine, but of the practical ability to inject badgers with the vaccine and to train people to undertake that. I have seen that with my own eyes. We have the results of those deployment trials and so those resources are no longer required. As I have said, the Government have spent £30 million since 1997 on trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers and a cattle vaccine, and we are committed to spending £20 million over the next five years to continue the development of the vaccines, which we all want to see.

The hon. Lady described the action rather disparagingly as a DIY cull. I hope that I made it clear that a high level of proficiency will be required of those contracted to undertake the cull. They must have achieved deerstalking level 1 proficiency and must undertake an additional course to cope with the physiology of the badger and to understand the health and safety requirements.

The monetised costs are a matter for the farming industry. It is a fact that it costs a modest amount more to incorporate culling as a method of controlling badgers. However, how are we to estimate the social cost to the industry from the repeated breakdowns of herds and the spread of the disease? That is also an important factor in the decision. We estimate that there will be savings to the taxpayer of £900,000 for each 150 sq km area.

On the question of whether farmers will move out of an area having entered into a consortium during the four year period, the industry has agreed to provide the resources up front for a four-year programme of culling. Therefore, if anyone should leave during that time, the resources will be available to contract operators to ensure that the culling programme is seen through. What we know from the randomised badger culling trial is that it is not good to start and then break off before the exercise is completed. We have ensured that that is covered under section 7 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The programme will be closely monitored, as I said, and we will establish an independent panel of experts to look closely at the efficacy and humaneness of it, including through a post mortem of the carcases that accrue from the culling trial, so that we can establish that the animals have been humanely dispatched.

The hon. Lady asked me about the number of badgers likely to be involved. It can only be an estimate, as there is no precise knowledge of the size of the badger population, but before any culling is carried out a detailed survey of the control area and all the setts within it will be required. We estimate that the number of badgers culled will be between 1,000 and 1,500 per 150 sq km area over a four-year period. I invite the House to compare that with the statistics produced by the Highways Agency showing that on average, 50,000 badgers are killed on the roads in this country every year.

Of course, we have been in contact with the Bern convention secretariat on a number of occasions, and there is no question of eradicating the badger population. It is a protected species but not an endangered species in this country, and the most important thing to remember is that unchecked, this disease is spreading further and further north. At the moment we have TB-free badgers and cattle in England, and we want to keep it that way. Our endeavour is to reduce TB infection in cattle and badgers.

I have given the Home Secretary an undertaking that DEFRA will take care of the police costs. I am afraid I cannot share the Home Office advice with the hon. Lady, but I can assure her that I have met the police, who are responsible for public order, on a number of occasions and discussed how they will conduct their role in ensuring that the exercise guarantees public safety, and that those who are contracted to carry out the culling can do so without fear or intimidation.

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

I commend the Department for bringing forward this extremely difficult decision. May I go back to 1972, when I understand badgers were protected for the first time in this country? The badger population grew, but infections in cattle grew incrementally. I hope that the programme will recognise the animal welfare effects on farmers, who lose not just individual cattle but often whole herds. The statement partly redresses that balance.

Who will issue the licences, and what will the conditions of them be? How broad will the areas be, and what consultation will there be on the specifics of them? The report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the last Parliament made some helpful recommendations, from which I hope my right hon. Friend will take some comfort.

Turning to vaccination in the long term, will the Secretary of State address the real concerns about vaccinating cattle and the prospect of their meat not being able to enter the food chain?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am publishing today the draft guidance to Natural England, which contains detailed information for my hon. Friend. I expect that her Committee will want to examine the conditions of the licences in some detail, but as I have said, there must be a minimum area of 150 sq km. Natural England will consult locally on each area to be licensed.

Cattle vaccination is a very difficult issue. It is prohibited by EU legislation, and since the United Kingdom and Ireland are the only two member states that currently have TB as an endemic disease, I am sure the House will appreciate how difficult it will be to get the law changed. We first have to establish that we have a viable cattle vaccine and a viable test to distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated cattle.

Flood Defences

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a privilege and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, as my immediate constituency neighbour and someone who is familiar with the problems of flooding in Yorkshire.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the implications of the potential delays to planned flood defence systems. In the short time available, I want to focus on a technical point and relate it to my constituency, North Yorkshire and Yorkshire and the Humber, areas with which I am familiar. I hope to put to my hon. Friend the Minister a once in a lifetime opportunity. I am sure that there are occasions when he lies awake in the middle of the night wondering what he can do, in what one hopes will be a long ministerial and parliamentary career, to make a difference. I suggest that he has an opportunity here and now to make a difference to a large number of people not only in Pickering, Thirsk and North Yorkshire, but in the rest of the country.

The Minister is familiar with the background to the scheme, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State had the opportunity to visit Pickering and see the work on the “Slowing the Flow” project. The Minister will know that the original £6 million scheme for flood defences at Pickering was rejected by the town and the district civic society, but, eventually, in April 2009—with confirmation in 2010—funding for the Pickering pilot project was announced. It is a unique, pioneering scheme, with Government bodies working closely with communities, where there is not an established pot of money. There are particular difficulties with the course and nature of the river upstream of Pickering, which, as you will be aware, Mr Bayley, is where the beautiful North Yorkshire Moors railway is located. The innovative and pioneering scheme involves creating buffer strips along water courses, digging ditches and blocking moorland drains, as well as planting trees.

The scheme was created with the compliance of the landowner and in partnership with the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, Durham university, as an academic partner, the North York Moors national park authority, Natural England and Ryedale district council, primarily driven by Pickering town council and the local floods group. There was extreme shock, surprise and disappointment when in June, at the eleventh hour—the technical aspect of the scheme that I want to discuss was due to start this summer—the scheme was put on hold and effectively cancelled, as the cost was deemed to have undergone a staggering increase from an initial £1.3 million to a total of £3.2 million. That was alleged to be due to the requirements of the 1996 guidance to the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the focus of my questions to the Minister and of my call for action.

The guidance states that the bunds must be able to withstand a one in 10,000 year flood event. However, one local, who is expert in the matter, has said:

“While I appreciate that more detailed modelling and info was constantly coming to light to influence the res engs decision, the fact remains that the critical factors of bund capacity of 85k m3 and the number and proximity of properties at Newbridge remained constant throughout.”

You almost could not make this up, but I did not appreciate before preparing for the debate that a community is 10 properties. Were there only nine properties at Newbridge, the scheme would proceed apace. There would be no cause for delay or concern about the reservoir. Newbridge has been there for far longer than the proposed scheme.

One option—not my favourite—would involve the compulsory purchase of one of the dwellings or properties at Newbridge. That would be the most regressive and least favoured option, but it shows how daft it is that some of the definitions, such as the number of properties that form a community, lead to perverse decisions. As my constituent goes on to say:

“I just cannot understand an anomaly within effective legislation that allows this.”

That is a reference to the fact that the interpretation of the Reservoirs Act 1975, through the guidance, is either woolly or misleading. Although it appears on the one hand that high-risk criteria are precisely laid down, there appears to be a get-out clause to lower the classification to low risk. My constituent concludes:

“I shudder to think what these obligatory Res Engineers are being paid”—

that is his personal comment, I hasten to add—

“but there is something seriously wrong when their interpretation can vastly alter the design criteria from one month to the next when all the physically present criteria remain constant…unless the application of common sense is overtly permissible.”

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to make progress.

I do not want to use the debate to apportion blame. I want to use it in a constructive way to urge the Minister to remove the barriers to this project and to other projects. There are similar difficulties in Thirsk, and the common thread of the flood defence schemes is that part of the project in both Thirsk and Pickering allows a storage bund to be created. However, that is now being defined as a reservoir under the Reservoirs Act 1975. My conclusion is that the projects are being over-engineered with structures that are too complicated, and falling foul of the iniquitous 1996 guidance note to the 1975 Act. Clearly, there is a gap between aspirations for individual projects, such as the Pickering pilot project and the Thirsk flood defence scheme, and the ability of the Environment Agency and others to deliver on such schemes.

The Pickering bund scheme has highlighted a lack of clarity about high risk and lower risk in the 1975 Act, and, therefore, a major disconnect between legislation and guidance. There is little guidance beyond the matter of actual reservoirs. It does not seem sensible to build bunds to withstand a flood of biblical proportions, when communities downstream of 8,000, 10,000 or 14,000 properties are being held back by a community of 10 properties. Those communities downstream, in that eventuality, would already be both evacuated and in any case devastated. I agree with another of my constituents that that massively over-engineered standard is denying Pickering residents protection from repeated and frequent flooding. Will the Minister confirm that the return periods are based on data since the late 1980s? In that case, one in 10,000, or 235 cubic metres per second, can barely be described as an educated guess. On what basis were the figures reached? Pickering starts to flood at 12 cubic metres and seriously floods at 15, but in 2007 there was approximately 29 cubic metres. At 235 cubic metres—the one in 10,000 years risk—the town would be devastated and possibly extinct. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 contains no specific provisions for bund schemes of this type.

I turn next to the personal liability of reservoir engineers in the event of structural failings. It would be totally impractical to ask the two reservoir engineers to risk their personal liability, as it would result in hugely over-cautious, over-engineered and therefore over-priced structures. Liability needs to be shifted from the individual to a public body such as the Environment Agency—or, in my view, the Environment Agency’s political master, the Minister.

Well over £1 million has been wasted in Pickering, and it has produced nothing. We do not want more feasibility studies, consultants or modelling unless specifically needed for a bund. There is a scheme on the table, which everyone believed would work, and there is a great desire and the practical and political will to make it work.

I shall take this opportunity to put a number of questions to the Minister and to tell him of a number of possible solutions that I have identified. The “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering has been hampered by the fact that although it is a demonstration project, and although part of it is already under way—I have mentioned the creating of buffer strips, the digging of ditches, the planting of trees and the blocking of moorland drains—I am told that no engineer has yet quantified the volume of water that will be retained. That is staggering, given the work that the Conservative party did in opposition, the fact that the Department recently produced its natural environment White Paper and the work undertaken by a number of water companies.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

rose—

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to make progress.

“Slowing the Flow” was always a demonstration project. Implementation requires a major policy change by the Environment Agency, from highly expensive hard defences to affordable simplicity. We should keep things as simple and unstructured as possible, working with nature as closely as we can. However, that appears to be outside the engineers’ and the agency’s comfort zone. Where is the expertise? Is the answer in the White Paper? Is it already known by the water companies? If it does not exist, it should be developed. Is the Department minded to develop it?

The key to this debate is whether the Minister has the power to vary the 10,000 and 25,000 cubic metre thresholds. I understand that the reservoir guidance notes drafted by the Institution of Civil Engineers and agreed by the Department and the Environment Agency can be varied. Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 amends the Reservoirs Act 1975. New section A1(6) of the 1975 Act states:

“In making regulations under subsection (5) the Minister shall aim to ensure that a structure or area is treated as large under the regulations only if 10,000 or more cubic metres of water might be released as a result of the proximity or communication mentioned in that subsection.”

New section A1(7) of the 1975 Act states:

“The Minister may by order substitute a different volume of water for the volume specified in subsection (3) or (6).”

This is the thrust of my debate. The project could probably go ahead if the Minister were to be bold and use that power of variation. He could also instruct the Environment Agency to replace the dam at Mill lane with an automatic sluice. In the longer-term, he could ask Yorkshire Water to consider storing water underground through enlarged sewer pipes. He could even instruct the Environment Agency to compulsorily purchase one of the 10 properties at Newbridge. I have been reliably informed that the chances of finding extra money or exploring local authority options through the flood defence committee or through development gain are minimal.

This is an individual debate, and I am asking for the Minister’s urgent reply. I urge him to go back to the drawing board to find a similar scheme that can use the £1.3 million already on the table and re-examine the engineers’ judgment that category A status applies to the reservoir and the two bunds upstream. Most urgently, I ask him to waive the reservoir guidance notes by using his ministerial discretion and common sense, for which he is well known.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

That is a key point, and I will come on to talk about how we are reviewing the situation, principally in Pickering, and the implications that it will have for other areas.

The Environment Agency is responsible for technical judgments on flow rates and volumes. The Institution of Civil Engineers is the expert, and it is vital that we have such organisations. The Environment Agency has assessed with the panel engineer the volume of water that needs to be stored. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a point about powers that I may or may not have to do with variation. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the threshold has been reduced from 25,000 to 10,000 cubic metres. That is the area in which Ministers can apply variation, depending on the circumstances. However, that element of the Act has yet to be formally adopted. When it is, that variation will be in the power of Ministers. Under the current scheme, the Secretary of State and I do not have the power to vary the rates.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted to be able to help my hon. Friend on that point; someone in the Institution of Civil Engineers has put it to me that that might be suitable for Ministers, but not under the 2010 Act. Its provisions and the reduction in rates caused shockwaves in golf clubs and farms. Those reductions have huge implications for future reservoir building, but that is not the purpose of the debate today. Under the 1998 guidance to the Reservoirs Act 1975, the Minister has the power to make an order proposing the scheme in Pickering. We have to balance removing the risk of river flooding with the slight risk caused by the presence of a reservoir upstream to the communities at Newbridge. He has the power; I urge him to use it before the House rises for the recess.

[Richard Benyon]

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes and it is now on the record. My officials and I will look carefully at it. However, that is not the information that I had when preparing for this debate, so I will take that point away and get back to her.

Let us look at the case that my hon. Friend raises, because it is important to understand the history. I apologise to other hon. Members who might wish to intervene, but I have only a few moments left. My hon. Friend called this debate and I want to be able to answer her points. Last September, an independent reservoir engineer was appointed to assess the proposals in the context of the Reservoirs Act 1975. The Act is designed to ensure that public safety is maintained. The engineer acted in accordance with guidance produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers. At that stage, the engineer identified the reservoir as a category A reservoir. That classification means that a breach of what could be an 85,000 cubic metre reservoir could seriously endanger a community—we have already discussed what constitutes a community. As a result, it is only right that the highest standards of public safety apply. At best, a failure would increase the level of flood-water, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme. At worst, a catastrophic failure would result in human tragedy. The engineer agreed necessary design standards that should apply in this case to maintain public safety.

In March, new modelling led the engineer to conclude that a higher design standard was necessary. In May, a second opinion was sought, again from an independent reservoir engineer. The second opinion confirmed that the Institution of Civil Engineers guidance on the 1975 Act had been correctly applied and that a higher standard was needed. That led to a redesign that incorporated the higher design standard of the spillway, to which we referred earlier. Inevitably, that pushed up costs. Despite the significant local investment already on the table, the shortfall in funding amounted to around £2 million. Frustratingly, at that level of cost, the scheme is not cost-beneficial under the Treasury Green Book rules. It is not my view that the guidance is wrong. That said, the case does underline the sense in reviewing the guidance. That is a firm assurance that I can give to my hon. Friend today. A review on highly technical guidance—I have already referred to the complexity of the document—is not a quick fix, and will require broad engagement. In the mean time, I welcome efforts to reassess these proposals.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area. That said, I know that many of the innovative approaches that my hon. Friend has described are continuing in parallel. It may well be that we can fairly quickly achieve a different scheme that complies with the Reservoirs Act 1975 and has a sensible cost frame and a sensible cost-benefit analysis result. All the work going into reviewing the guidance will not affect the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. If it does, Ministers will have the power to apply other criteria to assess whether, on the balance of risk, it is right that these schemes should go ahead even with the lower threshold.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area, so I genuinely applaud the real openness and innovation. There has been engagement with the local authorities, local landowners and many other partners, and leadership from my hon. Friend.

The Environment Agency and local partners are working hard to reassess the designs and to drive down costs. Other options that were originally put forward are also being discussed. Once consideration is complete—I expect that to be at the end of July—the agency is eager to continue working with local partners to explore what can be done while maintaining public safety.