Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am conscious that the Minister needs to speak, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.

Last week, the outgoing head of the Environment Agency used a speech at the RSA—the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—to call for cross-party consensus of the kind that we have seen this morning. That is what we had with the Pitt review: an approach that focused on building the capacity for strategic intervention. There were 92 recommendations, but only 46 were implemented. That approach, however, saw improvements implemented at Brough, Swinefleet, Burringham, Gunness, Stallingborough and Halton Marshes.

Since 2010 many of the projects named in the Humber flood risk management strategy have become stuck in the pipeline, because Government cuts have closed off, and in some cases indefinitely delayed, the available funding for essential projects. Examples include the Sutton Ings flood alleviation scheme, a sustainable drainage retrofit that would have protected an area of central Hull in which there are 2,982 homes at significant risk of flooding. The Ulceby flood alleviation scheme would have protected an area of Grimsby in which 2,164 homes are at significant risk of flooding. We urgently need to get back to an evidence-based flood management policy that all parties in the House can support. Nothing else will deliver the risk management strategy required for the Humber.

Natural Capital (England and Wales)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Graham Stuart

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman no doubt anticipates what I am about to say. He agrees that there should have been a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench tonight. It would also have been extremely helpful if Her Majesty’s Opposition had managed to get a shadow Treasury Minister, who are a great deal less busy than actual Treasury Ministers, to join us.

[Barry Gardiner]

I heartily endorse that. I will ensure that all these remarks are conveyed to my colleagues on the shadow Treasury Front Bench. I give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that they will get copies of my speech.

Having a Treasury Minister here would have truly shown that the Government were not just paying lip service to the idea of natural capital but were listening to the recommendations of the natural capital committee— namely, that the Government should establish a framework to measure and account better for changes in natural capital assets, and to improve the valuation of those changes and how they are fed into policy decisions.

The natural capital committee points out that the Government need to establish a risk register for natural capital assets that will clearly identify potential resource constraints or tipping points that may arise from the further degradation of our biodiversity. It insists that the implications for business supply chains from the loss of key natural resources must become a fundamental part of national economic planning. It recommends that the Office for National Statistics should include natural capital fully in the UK’s environmental accounts and that we should be working with business to develop guidance on corporate natural capital accounting.

I pay particular tribute to the work conducted by the Prince of Wales’s accounting for sustainability project. A4S has worked with strategic corporate partners to identify $72 trillion of resources and environmental services that classically have been omitted from corporate balance sheets around the globe, to enable those businesses better to understand the risks to their own supply chains and ultimately their future sustainability unless they change their business model for one that respects and properly values natural capital.

The Government should follow the prince’s initiative in involving business in accounting for natural capital. Will the Minister say whether he agrees with the suggestion of asking companies to prepare annual corporate sustainability reports for shareholders as part of their reporting cycle, in line with the business-led corporate sustainability reporting coalition’s recommendations?

Let me say this loud and clear: some things are beyond price. Some values cannot be monetised. It is not just that the aesthetic and spiritual values of a mountain are difficult to quantify; we should not even try. We must recognise that those values should not be traded in any market. They are not directly comparable and we must not attempt to compare them on a like-for-like basis in any cost-benefit analysis. However, to recognise that is not to accede to the demands of the fundamentalists of both right and left that we should not sensibly ascribe a value to the mountain for the tourism benefits that it generates or the watershed services that it provides. These are real economic values and we conduct our policy decision making in wilful and deliberate ignorance if we ignore them. This is not to commoditise nature; it is to ensure that the true value of nature is not ignored and treated as a free good by those who for decades have peddled a false theory of value that has allowed them to trash the environment with impunity.

The proper valuation of our natural capital is a means to its better protection, not a tariff sheet of charges for its destruction. The Secretary of State recently made several remarks that are deeply worrying because they have implied precisely the opposite. In his speech to the Association of National Park Authorities last month, he suggested that the protection of our finest countryside could be traded away to the highest bidder. This is quite simply a disgrace, and an ignorant one at that. Anyone with the slightest understanding of biodiversity offsetting knows that there is a hierarchy of principles that it must follow, foremost among which is that offsetting cannot downgrade or amend the existing levels of protection for biodiversity. The Secretary of State, by his ignorant, unscientific and dogma-driven approach, has shown himself to be incapable of leading the Government’s important work on natural capital and has probably done more to undermine the undoubted benefits that could flow from a proper system of biodiversity offsetting than any of the open-toed-sandal anti-development campaigners whom he so clearly despises .

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness mentioned the work of the UN Statistical Commission on the system of environmental economic accounting. The UN has adopted SEEA as a new international accounting standard. It is important for the Minister to indicate to the House the Government’s commitment to develop the SEEA proposals and incorporate natural capital fully into their accounting framework by 2020.

I am also delighted that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of GLOBE International and its excellent natural capital initiative. I had the honour of chairing the national capital legislation summit that he mentioned which took place in the Bundestag this summer. I agree with the importance that he placed on incorporating natural capital into the first 2015 sustainable development goals. I should like to put on record my thanks and appreciation for the support of the German Government, who have consistently, and with great vision, understood the importance of this work in tackling global poverty as well as in addressing issues of climate change and biodiversity.

It has long been a fundamental principle that the polluter should pay. All too often, though, the polluter has got away with it because nobody has been able to answer the question, “How much?” In the UK we have set up the natural capital committee to ensure that the market and the non-market values of the public goods that nature provides are taken into account in all policy decision making. Our goal must be to incorporate these values into the standard Treasury method of cost-benefit analysis, our purpose being to stop those who seek to exploit the goods and services that nature provides by diminishing her continued ability to provide the essential ecosystem services and public goods that the rest of society needs.

The state of natural capital in the UK is at a critical point. Thirty per cent. of it is in decline, and action now is essential. The natural capital committee has produced an important report, but the Government must listen to what it says and implement its recommendations.

Finance Bill

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Graham Stuart

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sure that it is only a matter of time. In so far as the hon. Gentleman seeks to speak for his party—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does he?

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not want to see dissent break out on the Government Benches. No fighting amongst yourselves, please, gentlemen. These are serious matters. They cannot be treated as an experiment because people suffer.

Flood and Water Management

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Graham Stuart

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on initiating it. She chairs the Select Committee with great aplomb, and I know that the matter is exceptionally dear to her heart. I was surprised only that she curtailed her remarks as she did. I expected at least an hour from her.

I look forward most of all in the debate to hearing from the Minister about the progress that has been made since the Government responded to the Committee earlier in the year. The Committee’s report was published last year following a series of welcome and ambitious commitments from the Government: safeguarding clean, reliable and affordable water supplies; protecting households and property from the risk of flooding; and reforming the water industry and making it more resilient, efficient, sustainable, innovative and affordable. The report provided the Government with a comprehensive and holistic approach to delivering on those commitments. Of course we should, in this debate, be assessing the progress that has been made. Instead, I am afraid we must reflect on a number of broken promises and missed opportunities.

A water White Paper was promised for June. In April the Minister revised that commitment and promised that it would be published in the autumn. Unfortunately, the latest business plan of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now promises publication in December, nine months after the Committee’s report, and we are still no clearer on how the Government plans will encourage the retrofitting of sustainable drainage systems, how they will ensure that customers’ views will be taken into account during the price review process, and how investment in the water industry will be better managed to avoid the boom and bust cycle that so badly harms the supply chain. There is also uncertainty about the future of metering and water efficiency in households, social tariffs to reduce the impact of rising bills on low-income customers and the future of competition in the water industry. Publication in December would leave only four months for the Government to meet their commitment to introduce any new legislation required as a result of the White Paper by next April. I hope that the Government’s ambition will not be scaled back in the fight against a tight time scale.

Since our report, the Government have also severely cut capital funding for flood defences. When we consider that we need to increase investment simply to maintain the current level of protection, that is cause for considerable concern. As the Committee pointed out:

“To cut back significantly on flood defence infrastructure spending could be a classic example of short-term savings leading to much greater long-term costs.”

The Government have also failed to provide any assurance on the provision of flood insurance beyond 2013. The natural environment White Paper, which was excellent in many ways—we adverted to some of it earlier in the debate—also missed a valuable opportunity to set out how, for example, agriculture and land management could play a stronger role in reducing flood risk and improving water quality. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to update us on each of those issues, so that we may leave this afternoon’s debate with a much clearer idea of Government policy on the future of flood and water management. I shall try to deal with each of those issues.

I also want to discuss some of the priorities for the forthcoming White Paper. Ever since privatisation, capital expenditure in the water industry has been concentrated towards the middle of the five-year funding cycle. That has led to financial and managerial inefficiencies in addition to instability in the supply chain, ultimately resulting in higher costs for consumers. It also leads to the migration of skilled resources out of the sector to more stable industries. That has created a severe and worsening skills shortage in the water industry.

The White Paper must help to bring to an end the effect of that five-year asset management planning cycle. It should also explore the link between the price review and innovation. In the current investment period, companies are looking for tried and tested technologies with payback within three years. Some water companies have disbanded their research and development departments as they are not currently funded by the price review. R and D is now conducted on an ad hoc basis rather than in a co-ordinated way.

The water sector faces a period of huge challenge in coping with the implications of climate change, and in reducing its own carbon emissions. It can ill afford to be locked into a short-term investment cycle that stifles and inhibits innovation. The White Paper must set out how the Government will restructure the water industry properly to incentivise and encourage companies to invest in innovation, particularly in treatment processing, energy efficiency, leakage prevention, and water efficiency.

Competition can help to stimulate that innovation. Competition in the water industry is not an end in itself, but it is a means of improving services for customers, particularly the most vulnerable, and improving environmental outcomes.

In the White Paper, the Government gave a commitment to respond to the Cave review, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the White Paper will ensure that greater competition will meet those challenges. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether the Government’s one-in, one-out rule, which prevents a regulation from being introduced unless another is scrapped, will apply to any legislation proposed in the White Paper. If so, perhaps he will share the Department’s thinking on which regulations might be scrapped in the event of any legislation coming forward in April 2012.

We talked much about sustainable drainage systems in another area on which the Government gave a commitment in the White Paper. When sustainable drainage systems are successfully implemented, they can make a significant contribution to reducing the risk of flooding by increasing the capacity of land to absorb water. They can also reduce the risk of water contamination, and increase the sustainability of water use. The provision of SUDS for new developments and, where possible, for existing developments is widely supported throughout the House. However, evidence to the inquiry revealed widespread concern among local authorities about their ability to fund the adoption and maintenance of SUDS. The Government’s response to the Committee stated that DEFRA would fund local authorities for the costs of maintaining adopted SUDS and SUDS maintenance in the “short term.” Will the Minister say how long he expects that “short term” to be? That is important for local authorities.

In November, the Prime Minister said that flood defence spending would be protected, and would be “roughly the same” as under Labour. In fact, capital funding for flood defences to protect homes has fallen from a baseline figure last year of £354 million to £259 million. We now know the meaning of the phrase, “roughly the same”. It means give or take 30% according to my mathematics. In fact, it is a 27% cash cut to the budget, and a 32% real-terms cut when inflation is taken into account.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

After the floods in 2000, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had people from Norfolk and other areas to No. 10 Downing street and made expansive commitments on flood protection. However, the pressures of political life being what they are, flooding moved out of the spotlight and those promises disappeared along with the floodwater. It is an historic happening for Governments slowly to cut long-term infrastructure investment when it is not in the spotlight. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on how to create a long-term sustainable structure which, regardless of the political cycle, ensures that our constituents are properly protected from flooding?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman points out that at various periods during the previous Labour Administration the flood budget was raided, but he must acknowledge that overall there was both a real-terms and a cash increase in that budget. He is absolutely right that from time to time that budget was raided and cut as necessary in the political cycle, but overall it was increased. The Minister knows that I have the greatest respect for him and the work that he is trying to do in this area, and I know that he understands the importance of the matter. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) talked about small cuts, but this is not a small cut. It is a 27% cash, or a 32% real-terms cut in this period. That is a huge amount.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I was not trying to suggest that he is not being proper in challenging the Government. My point is that historically Governments tend to raid the flood budget when under the pressure that they inevitably suffer. The last Government was much better at spending money than the present one, but it turned out that so much of that money could not be sustained, and we could not afford it. He should not boast about that too much. What we should focus on is how to create a long-term situation so that whoever is in government and whatever the state of public finances our constituents will have a guarantee that that political cycle will not get in the way of sensible, stable support for flood defence in their homes.

[Barry Gardiner]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have talked about introducing minimum standards, and we must move towards consensus, because that is in everyone’s interest.

The Government have given a commitment to deliver 15% efficiency savings in Environment Agency flood defence budgets, but that leaves an overall reduction in those budgets of 17%. I would be grateful if the Minister provided us with an update of his assessment of the impact of that reduced funding settlement in relation to the Government’s flood programme, and the flood defence work that the Environment Agency has programmed for the next three years. Will he also provide an indication of how the 15% of efficiency savings in the Environment Agency has impacted on that work?

Despite those funding reductions, the Committee noted the Government’s commitment fully to fund local authorities in their new roles under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and that they would provide direct grants of up to £36 million a year to lead local flood authorities. That is welcome. Each lead local flood authority would receive at least £110,000 a year, with the authorities tackling the highest levels of local risk receiving up to £750,000 a year. However, the communities and local government special grants settlement for 2011-12 highlights that the most that any lead local flood authority received this year was not £750,000, but £260,000—that was in Kent. Of the 152 lead local flood authorities, 144 received less than £200,000. To allow for local flexibility, those grants are not ring-fenced. On average, central Government funding to councils will fall by 26% over the next four years. I understand the constraint under which the Government are operating.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman’s party created them.

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed, I take on board the party political knockabout that we can have. Local authorities have been put in an extremely difficult position. By not ring-fencing the funds, the Government cannot be sure that they will go into flood defences. It is therefore important to find out from the Minister how the Government plan to review local authority spend on flood management, and how they propose to hold local authorities to account for the money they have been given to spend in that area.

I acknowledge that that is not just a matter for central and local government. The Committee concluded that it was right for beneficiaries such as developers to help fund new flood defence schemes. In light of that, will the Minister confirm how funding through the new flood and coastal resilience partnership funding arrangement will be focused on those communities at greatest risk? How will the Government identify those communities and ensure that their protection is achieved in practice? As discussed earlier, the Government’s draft national planning policy framework should also be amended to address how planning should apportion the costs of providing flood defences for new developments between public agencies and private beneficiaries.

The Labour Government’s statement of principles guaranteed universal flood insurance coverage for homes in affected areas. That guarantee runs out in 2013, and was based on the understanding, following the Pitt review, that Government should have

“above inflation settlements for future spending rounds.”.

We know that that will no longer be the case.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report committed to updating the Committee on progress with implementing

“a roadmap to take us beyond 2013.”

I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to update hon. Members on precisely what the roadmap beyond 2013 might look like.

Water saving through greater efficiency will become increasingly important, especially in parts of the country where climate change and population growth will lead to significant constraints in supply. The Building Regulations 2010 introduced a new minimum water efficiency standard for new homes. The potential consumption of potable water by persons occupying a dwelling should not exceed 125 litres per person per day. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to increase the minimum water efficiency standard in future revisions of the Building Regulations 2010?

As the Committee noted, metering plays a key role in helping to reduce water demand. More widespread introduction of metering will mean that there are winners and losers and some, including groups of vulnerable customers, could see significant rises in their water bills. Social tariffs can help to ameliorate the impact of rising bills on low-income customers. The Government’s response to the Committee stated that they were preparing

“guidance on company social tariffs under Section 44 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.”

Will the Minister confirm when that will be published as it is of great interest and importance to many poorer constituencies? The regulatory framework under which water prices are set must also be reformed to include stronger water efficiency targets for water supply companies. The water White Paper should be clear on how that will be taken forward.

In giving evidence to the Committee, the Environment Agency estimated that costs associated with implementing the water framework directive up to 2027 could be between £30 billion and £100 billion, depending on the approach taken. Despite that level of investment, the UK was likely to see only 26% of rivers achieving “Good Ecological Status” by the water framework directive target date of 2015. The Government’s response to the Committee highlighted that it was possible, within the terms of the directive, to set lower standards of compliance. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to make use of that option? If so, it would be extremely deleterious. Do the Government have any plans to implement the “polluter pays” principle more accurately, so that customers do not have to foot the bill for cleaning up pollution for which they are not responsible? Domestic water customers currently pay some 82% of the costs of implementing measures to meet WFD requirements.

Together with other members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I welcome the focus placed by the Government on flood and water management. They seem, however, to have lost their way over the nine months since the report was published. An ambitious water White Paper and the commencement of provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act that have not yet been effected, must be a priority. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan to move the issue forward.