Winter Floods 2013-14

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 8th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Walker. I am happy to engage with the Minister— we have engaged in many debates on such issues—but he has to acknowledge that, after coming into office in 2010, his Government specifically removed flooding from the Department’s priorities. He can only accept that that meant that the country was less well prepared for last year’s floods and is now critically less well prepared for the future. I am interested to see whether the Minister will pick this up in his remarks, but we now have a 10% risk of a flood that is 10 times greater than the flooding of 2013-14 and four times more damaging than the widespread flooding of 2007. The Minister knows that that issue must be addressed, and unfortunately the Government have not even begun to address it. Last year’s floods have passed, and the broken promises to flooded communities have been forgotten. The Government think they have got away with it.

I will briefly address the Government’s responsibility for the impact of the 2013 floods, but my comments will focus on how policy should have changed since the floods and how policy has not changed. Among the Government’s blunders, the 2013-14 floods stand out as an example of the real pain that incompetent Governments can cause to communities and businesses—I acknowledge that the Minister touched on that. For the communities and businesses affected, the floods were not simply a natural disaster. The Government slashed investment in flood protection when they entered office, and with that they broke the promise they made before the election to deliver on the findings of the Pitt review of the 2007 floods.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Committee obviously greatly misses the hon. Gentleman. From the evidence we have heard I am having great difficulty reaching the same conclusion of a 10% increase in the risk of flooding. On what is he basing that conclusion?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am happy to advise the hon. Lady that I am basing my conclusion on the reports and work of the adaptation sub-committee and the Committee on Climate Change. If she is interested, I will happily send her the references.

The Government not only cut the budget for new defences; they decided to stop maintaining existing defences properly, and they cut the budget by 20%. Why? Because they cannot cut a ribbon on an essential maintenance project—they need new projects for that. The decision to remove flooding from the Department’s list of priorities was never just about the previous Secretary of State’s illiterate theories on climate change; the larger issue is the Government’s rejection of the responsibility to protect people from risks that are beyond their control. It was interesting to hear comments earlier in the debate about the need for the Government to step in and about Flood Re, which I echo. Both coalition parties supported the Pitt review strategy that the previous Labour Government were delivering before 2010, but both parties abandoned it straight after the election because they felt they could get away with it. They crossed their fingers and hoped that no one would notice the unbuilt defences, the collapsing sea walls, the eroded riverbanks and the clogged up culverts. Forty-six of the Pitt review’s 92 recommendations have not been implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory, because the floods were not only in Somerset. In fact, more houses were flooded on the Thames estuary than in Somerset, so he must be selective in his memory. My point is that, after 2007, the previous Government undertook a huge programme and established the Pitt review. Both the hon. Gentleman’s party and the Conservative party said they would continue to implement the review, but neither did so when they got into government. He cannot say other than that because it is the truth, as he knows. I would be happy to give way to him once again if he wants to deny it on the record, but it is the truth, and I am afraid he really has to accept that.

Flooding not only destroys property, it makes homes unliveable for months and sometimes years. Flooding ruins businesses and destroys crops and livestock. We learned from the 2007 floods that those affected by flooding display between a twofold and a fivefold increase in stress and depression. The effect of flooding on people’s lives is enormous and long lasting, which is why prevention is so important, but the Government chose to cancel new flood defences, slash maintenance and sack front-line flooding staff.

The Government like to talk about competence, but we all remember the chaotic infighting between the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when so much of the country was under water. We all remember the failure to recognise the emergency until it hit the south-east. The Chair of the Select Committee alluded to the argument over the size of the pump and the capital expenditure and revenue dispute, which delayed action at the time. I agree with her call to consider this in terms of total expenditure, and I hope that change will eventually come. Her Committee makes an important point on that in its report.

We all remember the Prime Minister’s cruelly disingenuous promise that money is no object, and it is difficult to decide whether the original statement or the retraction of it in November marked a lower point. Will the Minister confirm how much of the flood support package for home owners and businesses has been received by those affected? Thankfully, many people were protected because, as the Committee on Climate Change has pointed out, the previous Government implemented 46 of the Pitt review’s key findings to increase our resilience to flood emergencies. We established the flood forecasting centre in 2008 as a joint venture between the Environment Agency and the Met Office. As the December 2013 tidal surge hit, the Environment Agency issued 160,000 flood warnings, and an estimated 18,000 people were evacuated from homes in coastal areas. At one stage during the surge, 64 areas had the highest warning level in place, reflecting a danger to life.

What lessons were learned? What has changed since the floods of last year? Many thousands of people were forced to leave their homes last winter. Transport was disrupted for weeks, in some cases months. Businesses were wrecked, and many closed and never reopened. After the flood, the Government promised that they had reviewed their approach to flooding and that the autumn statement would contain a proper long-term flood risk strategy. Well, the National Audit Office and the Committee on Climate Change reviewed that investment programme and found that nothing has changed. Three quarters of flood defences in England have not been maintained according to their identified needs in 2014-15. The Government’s investment plans will see the number of properties at significant risk rise by 80,000 every five years.

The budget for the ongoing maintenance of flood defences was cut by 20% in the 2010 spending review and has not been restored. The failure to maintain flood defences to the required standard has increased the risk of high-consequence flood defences, such as sea walls, failing. The failure of such defences would put lives as well as livelihoods at risk. I need to impress on the Minister that that is not simply my view but that of the National Audit Office and the Committee on Climate Change, and he really needs to take notice of it.

The failure to maintain flood defences to the required standard has led to a huge increase in flood risk. The Government have put the headline first. Of the

“over 1,400 schemes going ahead across the country”

announced by the Chancellor, only 310 are fully funded, and only 97 of those 310 are new. Some 1,119 of the 1,400 schemes may never receive full funding, because they are eligible for only 20% grant in aid funding—the rest has to be made up by partnership funding. The black hole in the Government’s funding announcements could be as large as £830 million.

The Government say their plans will reduce flood risk by 5%—true, but disingenuous, and the Minister knows that very well. The Government have put a cheap headline ahead of reducing risk for the most vulnerable. Instead of focusing on reducing risk for high and medium-risk households, they have focused on moving households at low risk into the lowest risk category. That is completely irresponsible. Limited capital investment should be protecting homes at high risk, which is a one in 30 risk, or at medium risk, which is a one in 75 to a one in 100 risk, rather than being used to provide additional protection to those at low risk, which is a risk of one in 1,000 or more. That is how the Minister gets his 5%, but it is meaningless—it is wrong.

This decision will put more homes, lives and livelihoods at significant risk. In a sign of just how far the Government are willing to go to get their headline, they chose to exclude consideration of risk to life from their analysis. If the Minister wants to deny that, let him challenge me now, but the evidence is there in the impact assessment: the Government have left out of it any assessment of risk to life. How could a Minister ask their civil servants to prepare such an assessment for them?

Does the Minister agree with the Committee on Climate Change and the National Audit Office that the number of properties at risk of flooding is increasing? If not, will he give us his figure for the predicted net change in the number of properties at high and medium risk over the next five to 10 years? Will he confirm that although his 5% net reduction figure is true, it is also true that the number of properties at high and medium risk has increased? Will he have the good grace at least to blush when he acknowledges that?

Will the Minister confirm that the long-term investment strategy assumes, against the evidence, that development on the floodplain will stop after 2014-15? The Committee on Climate Change says that 20,000 new properties are built on the floodplain each year, including 4,000 a year in areas of significant flood risk. Does the Minister disagree?

The Government’s strategy says:

“We have tested our findings against a range of possible climate change projections using the latest scenarios.”

However, if we read further, we find that the strategy assumes minimal climate change. The assumptions section on page 18—I challenge the Minister to read it—states:

“The main assumptions in this ‘baseline’ result are that the climate will change in line with the medium rate of change in UKCP09”—

UK Climate Projections 2009—

“and that no allowance is made for development in the flood plain.”

[Miss McIntosh]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully, although it is for the Minister to respond from the Government’s point of view—good luck! However, what would the Labour party do were it to form a Government? That is the missing link.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady and I have worked in partnership for many years, but I did not expect her to be my straight man in quite that wonderful fashion—I was just coming to that point, so I thank her very much.

The point I want to press is that, instead of planning for the worst, the Government are ignoring the inconvenient truth: they are ignoring the risks and abandoning the most vulnerable.

The Chair of the Select Committee asks what the Labour alternative is. The Government scrapped our approach to flooding and climate change, which was based on the findings of the Pitt review into the 2007 floods. They abandoned our focus on reducing flood risk. They abandoned our commitment to invest to protect the most vulnerable and to reduce the cost of flooding to well-being and the economy. We will deliver on the findings of the Pitt review—the other 46 recommendations, which have still not been implemented. However, a Labour Government will go further. We will introduce a new national adaptation plan based on the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations, because that is the only way to ensure that all sectors of the economy and all communities are prepared for climate change. We will end the confusion and chaos in flood investment by establishing a national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs and get cross-party support to meet them.

I conclude as I began: the risk of flooding has increased, and the risk of a catastrophic flood is increasing. The Government failed the country last winter. Now, they have tied themselves to a plan that risks catastrophic failure in the future. The Prime Minister was tested in last year’s floods, and he failed that test. Shortly, the electors of our country will have the opportunity to ensure that, when the next floods come, he is no longer in charge and in a position to fail again.

Managing Flood Risk

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Barry Gardiner

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

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

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

Well, yes, it certainly does.

[Miss McIntosh]

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

[Barry Gardiner]

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

Natural Capital (England and Wales)

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Barry Gardiner

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I would normally congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on securing the debate, but of course he spilled the beans and said that I was the one, when I was on the Back Benches, who went before the Backbench Business Committee. I congratulate him instead on his excellent speech. I also want to take this opportunity, which is the first I have had, to welcome the Minister to his new role and to pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who was not only unfailingly courteous but totally committed to this agenda.

Every society is defined by two things: what it creates and what it refuses to destroy. The only thing that sets us apart from our natural environment is our ability to reflect on our own place within it, but for all our cleverness we remain dependent on the extraordinary bounty that nature provides. The food and water that sustain us, the air that we breathe, the raw materials that we use as fuel and clothing or to construct our homes are only the most obvious of nature’s benefits. Equally important are the processes and services that purify our water, break down our waste, pollinate our crops and provide us with recreation and aesthetic or spiritual fulfilment. We have the right to use and enjoy the benefits of that natural capital, but that right gives us no licence to prevent our children from exercising a similar and equal use and enjoyment in the future.

It is one of the imperative responsibilities of Government to be good stewards of the present and even better guardians of the future, yet the facts show how far we are from being good stewards. In the UK our native flora and fauna have been in decline for over 50 years. Agricultural intensification in the 1970s is often pointed to as a key turning point, but the truth is that for more than 200 years, as we chopped down our forests and used coal to drive the world’s first industrial revolution, we moved from a pastoral agrarian society to an advanced city-based economy that has failed to value biodiversity. In that time hundreds of species of plant and animal have been lost from our country. We need a radically different approach not just to halt, but to reverse that decline.

One of the great advances in these two centuries is the progress we have made in classical economics. When Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations” or even when Karl Marx wrote “Das Kapital”, they understood capital to mean simply plant, machinery and money. But we have come to understand that there is such a thing as human, social and intellectual capital. We have come to realise that a well-functioning judicial system or an excellent education system are just as much a part of the wealth of a nation as its roads, its ports or its factories. The irony is that economists and economies have not yet caught up with the most important capital of all—natural capital. Virtually every other form of capital is derived in some way from natural capital and we can define it as the benefits that accrue to human society from the different species of life that inhabit the natural world.

The right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), to whom I pay tribute, spoke about pollination services. I remember that in 2006, when I was Minister with responsibility for biodiversity, I put £6 million into the Department’s budget submission for research into diseases in honey bees. When it came to agreeing DEFRA’s budget, the Treasury was not impressed. It insisted that times were hard and that with my £6 million it could create a new community hospital for people’s diseases, rather than worrying about bee diseases. I of course told the Treasury officials that I would be happy to cut the £6 million, but I asked them if they were aware that it would cost them £194 million a year. I explained that a recent National Audit Office report had pointed out that diseases in the honey bee population had reduced the pollination services that bees were able to carry out. This had reduced the yield from our arable crops, which in turn had reduced the revenue paid to the Exchequer by £200 million a year. The Treasury gave us the £6 million.

The thing about Treasury officials is that they are simple beasts. They do not want to know about the environment or ecosystem services, but show them a way to save money and they become entirely reasonable. Classical economics values things in a very simple way. Take forests, for example. Classical economics simply adds the sale price of the timber that can be harvested and the alternative use to which the land may be put and says that this is the value of the forest. What utter nonsense. The true value of a forest lies in far more than that. Forests stop soil erosion. They prevent flooding by absorbing moisture and they control climate, often regulating local as well as global weather patterns. They are a source of medicines and food and they have recreational and aesthetic value, and all that is before we even begin to consider sequestration.

In the millennium ecosystem assessment, 1,360 of the world’s top scientists showed that classical economics captured only one third of the actual value of the services that forests provide. The same is true for rivers, reefs, salt marshes, mangroves and all other natural ecosystems. We fail to factor their actual economic value into our policies and decision making, but because most of the other services that they provide are not bought or sold in markets, they are not normally taken into account, so the forests, reefs and rivers are lost or degraded.

Another important consideration is that those wider benefits, although immensely valuable, do not accrue to an individual property owner. The benefits are experienced by the community at large. They are regarded as free goods by the wider community and the wider economy. In classical economics such free goods are called externalities, and because they are not directly captured by the landowner they do not feature directly in the landowner’s decision of how and whether to dispose of them.

We use nature because it is valuable, but we abuse it because it is free. A nation’s GDP certainly increases every time money changes hands, but a growing GDP does not always create wealth. Many economic activities actually deplete wealth. The irony is that nations count that depletion as income, whereas they should see it as liquidation of capital. In fact, the TEEB—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity—report, edited by Pavan Sukhdev, has already shown that at current rates of decline the cumulative loss of ecosystem services from 2000 until 2050 will be equivalent to losing 7% of global GDP. Here is the challenge: how do we explain to those focused on GDP growth that they would make better economic decisions if they properly accounted for the very real value of natural capital?

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

I bow to the considerable knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, who has just left the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. This Government have been very clear, as indeed were his Government, about wanting to put natural capital at the heart of their economic thinking. With regard to climate change that is very obvious, but in some Departments it is less so, so how do we value the natural capital input?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady, whose chairmanship of the Select Committee is redoubtable, is absolutely right that that is clear in certain Departments but not in others. The way we value the input, as a number of Members have already indicated, is precisely the way contained in the natural capital committee’s first report to Parliament. The first thing we have to do—I will move on to this in more detail a little later—is to get each Department to create an inventory stating what capital it owns, what capital it affects and what capital it influences. Once we get Departments to look at it in that way, they can feed that into the Treasury so that better cost-benefit analysis is done and better economic decisions and policies are made.

Some of our political colleagues act as if they are still living in the 19th century. They believe that economic prosperity and environmental protection are destined to be in conflict with each other, but in fact the opposite is true. In 2011 the green economy made up just 6% of the economy, but it accounted for 30% of all growth.

Those on the economic right fall into the trap of thinking that the environment is the enemy of growth, but it is not. Their conclusion is that we must sacrifice the environment in order to achieve growth. But for those of us on the economic left there is an equivalent trap. Some on the left actually seem to agree with the economic right. Their claim is simply put the other way around: that economic growth is the enemy of the environment. Their conclusion is that we must sacrifice growth to achieve environmental protection. Both are wrong, of course, and they are wrong because they are locked into the same language of economic growth and environmental protection. They have failed to move into the new paradigm of economic wealth and environmental sustainability. There is a reason for that: the new paradigm requires a proper understanding of the value of natural capital, and not just an understanding of it, but a proper accounting of it.

What competent business would fail to carry out a proper inventory of its assets? Yet that is precisely what we as a country have done. We have not looked at the stocks and flows of natural capital and properly assessed them. In the UK we are beginning to introduce a fundamental change in environmental policy. Instead of focusing on individual species or habitats, we are pioneering an approach based on whole ecosystems. We commissioned the UK’s national ecosystem assessment, which has established that 30% of the UK’s ecosystems are in decline and that many others are only just holding their own against an increasingly hostile background of rising population, consumption and pollution. However, the Government have not yet taken the important step of instructing all Departments to create an inventory of the natural capital assets they own, utilise and affect. The Minister should speak to his colleagues in Government to ensure that that happens.

Quantifying the problem is the beginning of a solution. In the national ecosystem assessment, we have begun to put a value on the contribution of ecosystem goods and services to human well-being. The market has long known how to exploit the benefits of nature, whether by dumping waste at sea or chopping down rainforests with no thought for the wider damage that it was doing. But now, the most progressive businesses are beginning to understand the importance of sustainable supply chains. They are beginning to see the business imperative to reduce their own corporate risk profile and are now seeing genuine advantage in being net positive for the environment.

The establishment of the natural capital committee in response to the United Nations convention to combat desertification conference of the parties in Nagoya in 2010 is a significant and positive move on the part of the Government. I welcome it. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Meriden for how she steered the issue through Government. She also established that the committee should report to the economic sub-committee of the Cabinet. Her officials had put to her that it should report to her as Secretary of State, but she decided that it should report elsewhere, knowing full well that a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was perhaps less powerful than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She played a significant role in ensuring that the natural capital committee had the prospect of real success and traction. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) was entirely right to say that we should also have had a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench this evening.

Contamination of Beef Products

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she courteously and expeditiously steered the Committee to the report. Does she share my astonishment that companies such as Tesco, which conducts minute product checks on our farmers’ fruit and vegetables, often causing them huge financial loss for misshapen produce, seem to have failed to do any checks on processed meat products? Might that be because they believed such checks could reveal some very inconvenient truths?

[Miss McIntosh]

I say to my fellow Committee member—dare I say my hon. Friend?—that that is worrying, and I will refer to those checks later. The Committee was astonished to learn that the cost of the checks—he will correct me if I am wrong—is in the region of £1 million to £2 million for one product line. Following the urgent question earlier today, we should be under no illusion that the cost of food will regrettably go up, but this is a wake-up call and an invitation to source more British meat going into frozen and processed foods, in particular. I believe that that will swiftly restore consumer confidence in those products.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 8th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

I will come on to say a bit about that if time permits. I have personal reasons that relate to constituency interests—apologies for not mentioning it earlier but, as declared in the register, I farm two fields in partnership with my brother—for believing that tenant farmers in this country risk being in a very difficult position. I am very grateful to the Minister for having heard me out on my personal concerns in that regard.

During the course of compiling the report, the Minister told us that DEFRA would like direct payments to be phased out over the next financial period—in other words by 2020—and to end shortly thereafter. If DEFRA wishes to achieve that, we would like to see a plan to make farming in the European Union more competitive and less dependent on subsidy, otherwise the Department’s position does not seem credible and risks alienating farmers and weakening DEFRA’s influence in Brussels. From the evidence the Minister gave us, there seemed to be no new ideas on how to make UK farming more competitive. The Committee is not convinced by the Department’s arguments that rising prices for some commodities will necessarily deliver long-term improvements in farm incomes, for example, because of pressure from supermarkets on farmers.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out the Committee’s report so clearly and for initiating the debate. She will have heard the Minister say from a sedentary position, “That’s nonsense. It’s piffle.” It is important that she sets out how the Committee arrived at that conclusion and the basis of the witness statements that we took from the Minister and others.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and distinguished member of the Select Committee for those remarks. I could go through the witness statements at some length, but the record speaks for itself. For the record, the Government response states:

“The UK Government accepts that there is more for us to do in this area and are continuing to develop our ideas for reform. A UK Government priority will be to continue the good work undertaken in previous reforms, such as phasing out the remaining coupled subsidies and continuing the market orientation of the CAP.”

I am sure that the Minister would like to stand by the evidence that he gave to the Committee in an oral session.

Flood and Water Management

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Barry Gardiner

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[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.