Flood Defences (Exeter)

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I will outline for the benefit of the Minister, who, I am sure, has already been very well briefed about the subject, some of the background. I then have a number of questions for him. If he cannot provide me with answers at the end of the debate, perhaps he could write to me over the next couple of weeks with the responses.

Over the past few decades, we have been incredibly lucky in Exeter to have benefited from excellent flood defences, which were constructed following two devastating floods that took place in quick succession in the early 1960s. Thousands of households and businesses were flooded out in my constituency. Those flood defences are a wonderful resource for the people of Exeter, who use them to walk on and walk their dogs. I use them regularly to enable me to cycle through the city centre, thereby avoiding some rather busy roads. They have also protected us from the devastation that floods can cause.

The challenge we face, however, is that the independent Environment Agency says that the flood defences that have stood the test of time over those decades are now no longer sufficient to protect us from a major flood at the frequency with which the Environment Agency says we need that protection. Those flood defences need a significant upgrade or some alternative flood defence scheme will be required to provide Exeter households and businesses with the flood protection that they not only need but require if they are to qualify for flood insurance.

When the flood defences were built, they provided Exeter with protection from a major flood at a rate of around once in every 75 years. However, the current Environment Agency estimate is that, because of climate change, the rate of flooding has increased to around once in 40 years. It does not take a genius to work out that, given it is now 2012, we are already overdue a major flood in Exeter. Indeed, I have noticed a couple of occasions in recent years when the water has got very close to the top of our flood defences.

The Environment Agency tells me that upgrading Exeter’s flood defences is its major priority in Devon and Cornwall—it needs to happen, and it needs to happen very quickly. As we all know, the trauma of flooding can be very significant indeed. The excellent charity, the National Flood Forum, which I met yesterday to discuss the issue says:

“It can take up to two years for homes to dry out and be restored and during this time, many families live in temporary accommodation. The process is stressful, time consuming and simply beyond some people, particularly those who are elderly or vulnerable. The dread of flooding again can cause long term distress and mental health problems.”

The insurance industry says that its estimates of the latest cost of flooding to the average household are between £20,000 and £40,000.

As well as the challenge that we face locally in upgrading our flood defences, a second issue that is just as important relates to the statement of principles that the previous Labour Government signed with the insurance industry. Under the statement of principles, householders can still get flood insurance at reasonable rates if they are at risk or serious risk of flooding. The statement of principles runs out on 30 June next year, so we face a potential double whammy in Exeter. We will not have the flood defences that the Environment Agency says that we need to provide protection to our homes and businesses. Depending on whether the insurance industry’s estimate or the Environment Agency’s estimate is used, we are talking about between 2,500 and 3,500 homes of local people in well-known areas of the Exe floodplain: St Thomas, Alphington and low-lying parts of St Davids and St Leonards as well. I happen to live in one of those areas—admittedly, on the first floor, but I suspect I am still as at much risk as anyone.

We not only have the threat to those homes, but the very real possibility that, when the agreement with the insurance industry runs out, those homes and businesses will either not be able to get insurance against flooding or their insurance premiums will rise so fast that they become unpayable. The impact of that on thousands of homes in my constituency could be housing blight: people will not be able to move, sell their homes or get mortgages for them. Around 1,000 businesses that are affected—they are mainly on the major Marsh Barton industrial estate—will be unable to borrow or sell their businesses.

The recent study by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flood risk in the light of climate change predicted that damage from floods could rise tenfold to more than £10 billion in the coming decade. We have already seen the impact of the huge cuts—a 27% cut in their first year in office—that the Government have made to investment in flood defences. A number of schemes that back in 2010 had indicative funding for the next financial year, 2012-13, now do not have funding at all and will not go ahead.

In the past few weeks, a very damning report from the Public Accounts Committee said that the combination of Government cuts and the likelihood that hard-strapped local councils such as mine simply will not be able to fill the funding gap, as the Government are expecting them to do, has left a huge mismatch between the money available and the flood defences that we need.

As I have said, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, does he accept the Environment Agency’s analysis that, for every £1 invested in flood defence, £8 is saved? If so, why are the Government cutting investment in flood defences so drastically? Given the calls—even from some Government Members—for more measures to kick start our economy, does he agree that reversing the cuts in flood defences, which is exactly the kind of investment in vital infrastructure that many economists are calling for, including the CBI today, would provide much-needed business for the building trade? If so, has he made such representations to the Chancellor in advance of the forthcoming Budget?

If the Minister cannot persuade the Chancellor to invest more in flood defences, will he review the new requirement for local communities to fund or part fund vital flood defences? If he will not review that requirement, how much or what proportion of the cost of the Exeter scheme does he expect will have to be shouldered by my local council tax payers? Given the big cuts in local government funding, where does he expect my local authorities to find that money?

If the local authorities are to be responsible for paying the bulk of the money the Minister expects to be raised locally, what in his view should the balance of responsibility be between the district authority and the county council? Exeter city council—the district council—prides itself on having the fifth lowest district council tax in the country, and the prospect of having to fund the whole cost of the scheme would be an unacceptable burden on my local council tax payers. What does he imagine to be a fair sharing of responsibility between the city council and the county council, which is the upper tier authority responsible for flood protection?

Would the Minister advise the local authorities concerned to borrow the funds needed? That might actually be sensible, given our record low long-term borrowing costs. Would they be allowed to do so? If they do, can he give an assurance that that will not fall foul of Treasury rules? Given all those challenges, I would be grateful to the Minister if he gave me some idea of when he thinks work on upgrading Exeter’s flood defences might start and be completed.

Given the potential gap between that work being done and the ending of the agreement with the insurance industry on cover, what progress is the Minister making in his discussions with the insurance industry about what will happen when the statement of principles runs out next year? Is he aware of the extreme urgency, given that insurers will be issuing new annual policies this summer that span the period after which the agreement ends? Is he also aware of reports that some insurance companies are already refusing to renew policies or are significantly increasing premiums because of the current uncertainty?

What estimate has the Minister made of the likely increase in insurance premiums if no alternative solution is in place in time? How many more property and business owners are likely to find they cannot get insurance at all if this happens? When does he expect to make an announcement about what the Government propose to put in place of the statement of principles? I am sure that he will be aware that the industry has a preferred model of a public subsidy, in effect to pay for the premiums for at-risk property owners over and above a threshold. Has he had discussions about that and other models with the Treasury?

Has the Minister pointed out to the Treasury that the cost to the Government of such a scheme would be a fraction of the cost to the Government if the floods take place and they have to pay the clean-up costs? What does he think about the insurance industry’s preferred model of pool reinsurance? Would he favour it being compulsory or an opt-in model, such as the scheme already available to businesses to insure against terrorist attack?

Do the Government intend to consult on their proposals when they are published? Is it likely that whatever solution the Government come up with will require legislation? If so, we are looking at a very tight timetable indeed. The indications that I have been given from the insurance industry—in fact, it has stated them publicly—is that it feels frustrated at the lack of progress and does not feel that the Government are taking the issue seriously enough. Will the Minister give my constituents a categorical assurance that they will not be left in a position next year where they do not have the necessary upgrade of Exeter’s flood defences and they do not have a replacement for the agreement with the insurance industry that currently ensures cover at reasonably affordable prices?

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of great concern to thousands of householders and businesses in my constituency. They face a potential double whammy in a very short space of time next year: not having the upgrade to our flood defences that the Environment Agency says that Exeter requires and the uncertainty that hangs over them about the future of their insurance cover. I would be grateful to the Minister if he reassured them on those points.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing the debate on a matter that is of great concern to his constituents. Nothing would please me more than to be able to protect the nearly 4,000 properties that are currently at risk in Exeter. I hope that we can make progress in the coming months and have a scheme in place as quickly as possible.

I am sympathetic to the need to improve the existing flood defences in Exeter. First, let me be clear on the record that flood and coastal erosion risk management is an absolute priority for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government are committed to protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion where it is sustainable and affordable to do so. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of spending. I want this to be a constructive debate that focuses on the needs of his constituents, but we are talking about a 6% difference in this spending round compared with the previous spending round. In the context of cuts to Departments such as DEFRA of approximately 30%, that shows the absolute priority that we are giving flood and coastal erosion risk management, coupled with the efficiencies being found in the Environment Agency budget to spend more on the front line and on the partnership funding, which I will come on to talk about and which will be important for the aspirations of his constituents.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I have no desire to turn the debate into political ping-pong, but Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency, talked about a cut in cash terms of approximately 27%. The figures for capital investment by DEFRA for flooding work between 2010-11, the last figure of Labour spend, and 2011-12, are £354 million down to £259 million—a 27% cut in anyone’s terms.

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in DEFRA, will understand that these things are done in spending rounds. Very few flood schemes go from conception to commissioning in one year, which is why we base it over a spending review period. The excellent chairman of the Environment Agency will confirm—our figures have been sent to the Public Accounts Committee—that there is a 6% difference. The last Chancellor in the previous Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, announced shortly before the general election that there would be 50% capital cuts in budgets. I will be generous to the right hon. Gentleman and say that if his party had won the general election it would not have cut the capital budget by 50%, but it would certainly have cut it. I think that he would have also implemented all the recommendations of the Pitt review into those very damaging floods in 2007, part of which form the basis of the partnership funding system that we have introduced, and part of which resulted in the implementation of local flood risk management through lead local flood authorities. That is very important for communities such as his, and I hope that we can work together constructively in the coming months to achieve a result for those people.

It is the nature of flood and coastal defence investment that there are always more projects than national budgets can afford at any one time—there always have been and, sadly, always will be. Some 5.2 million homes are at risk from flooding and we want to protect as many of them as possible. Funding has always needed to be prioritised, and that would be the case even if capital budgets had not been reduced in the spending review.

As we have heard today, the Environment Agency is developing an option for Exeter that is expected to cost £25 million over its lifetime. Under the new partnership funding system, that might attract approximately £13 million funded by the general taxpayer. That leaves a shortfall of £12 million. Many schemes are funded totally by the taxpayer. What we have now in our partnership funding scheme is a totally transparent system. For years, communities such as the right hon. Gentleman’s wanted schemes like this to go ahead, always believing that total funding by the taxpayer would be available, but always just missing out and never knowing why—now they can see a transparent funding system.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the “independent” Environment Agency. It is part of DEFRA; it is the Government in terms of spending flood money. The people in the Environment Agency are the experts. They have developed that transparent funding system on the lines of the recommendations of the Pitt review and have come up with the scoring for what can be achieved for his community.

Exeter is an excellent example of why we have had to change the funding approach and introduce the partnership funding scheme. The new approach follows recommendations made by Sir Michael Pitt’s review of the 2007 flooding, in which he said that local communities should be allowed and encouraged to invest in flood risk management measures so that more can be done and more schemes can be introduced. He also said that future investment plans should not simply assume that the cost of flood alleviation is met centrally. Those recommendations were accepted fully by the Government. If we had carried on with the old system, we would be placing an ever-increasing burden on the general taxpayer to meet the long-term costs of flood defence alone. Those costs are expected to rise considerably with our changing climate, as the right hon. Gentleman predicted in his speech.

The old system artificially constrained how much could be done in each town and city because Government funding has always been, and always will be, limited. The old system meant that schemes were either funded in full, or not at all, based on top-down decisions. Many worthwhile schemes, such as in Exeter, were knocked back for funding, in many cases without a realistic prospect of ever going forward. At a cost of £25 million, the Exeter scheme would have been in that category, doomed never to have had a high enough priority for full funding. Transparency and greater local involvement is at the heart of the new partnership funding system. Instead of meeting the full costs of a limited number of schemes, national funds are spread further in order to achieve more overall. Many schemes will continue to be fully funded, where value for taxpayers’ money is sufficiently strong.

In other cases, such as Exeter, national funding is available to part-fund the project. This approach creates space within the system for local and private contributions to help pay for the significant benefits to land, property, infrastructure and other assets realised when defences are built. There are potentially many sources of funding to tap in to, both public and private.

Last year, the community of Morpeth found itself in a similar position to Exeter. The proposed scheme in that area did not meet the old criteria for full funding, so it was deferred, potentially indefinitely. Under the new approach, the Government were able to meet around half of the costs of the scheme. Leadership was shown by Northumberland county council, meaning that the scheme is now fully funded and will proceed in the coming months, with half the money—coincidentally, up to £12 million—met from local sources. This example shows the power of the new system, and there are many others that I would like to point to; this is important in addressing one of the right hon. Gentleman’s points.

In south Derbyshire, Nestlé contributed £1.7 million to a £7 million scheme to protect 1,600 homes and further financial contributions have been made from industry and other means. In other areas, the planning system has been used to unlock schemes, whether through section 106 money or some other form of funding, rather like exception site housing schemes in rural communities. The income from those schemes goes to deal with flood and coastal erosion risk management. In respect of another scheme in York, York city council is finding the money to bring it above the line.

The new system has already helped secure £72 million of external funding for schemes in the next three years—more than 500% higher than during the previous spending period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but under the rules for half-hour debates, an Opposition spokesperson cannot intervene.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am interested in the scheme in Northumberland that the Minister mentioned. Will he outline—if he does not know, perhaps he will write to me—whether the county council or district council was involved and what the balance of funding was?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The Government are determined that no food waste should go to landfill. Recent figures show a 13% reduction in annual UK household food waste since 2006. That is welcome, but we are undertaking a number of actions to divert food from landfill, including a voluntary agreement with the hospitality and food sector, which will be launched in the spring, and our anaerobic digestion loan, the first of which—an £800,000 loan to an AD plant in Wiltshire—has just gone ahead.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the close correlation between high recycling rates, low landfill use and local authorities operating alternate weekly collections? Is he also aware that a recent survey by the Western Morning News showed that not a single local authority in the south-west is going to accept the cash bung from the Communities Secretary to reintroduce weekly non-recyclable collections? Will he tell the Communities Secretary that that money could be much better spent?

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Gentleman knows something that nobody else does, because no announcement has been made on which local authorities are accessing the scheme. I can assure him that it is a matter for local authorities; it is for them to discuss with their local electorate how they manage their waste policies, and it is for them to access the scheme, if they wish.

Bovine TB

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State be clear with the House about what level of mortality she expects shooting to achieve, because the very clear advice that we received over many years as Ministers was that shooting would not achieve a level of mortality high enough to make any difference to the disease at all? She is allowing only a very short six-week period for the pilots, which cannot be credible.

[Mrs Spelman]

The science determines the level of mortality that must be achieved for the controlled reduction to be effective, and a 70% reduction in the badger population is what the RBCT trial showed had to be achieved. One key point of the six-week pilot is to confirm our assumption that controlled shooting will achieve that level of reduction in the badger population.

Water White Paper

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I have looked very carefully at that issue, and as my hon. Friend will know we are in the process of a very exciting change in how we manage our waterways, in transferring British Waterways to the charitable sector. There remains the opportunity to use our canals to move water around, but the sad truth is that water is an extremely heavy substance, and it is very carbon-intensive to move it very far. The economic assessments that I have seen state that to move water much more than 30 miles is uneconomic, but through a range of different measures we start to see that, with interconnectors, we can incentivise water companies to use a variety of means to move water from neighbouring areas to theirs. Then, we can start moving a trickle of water from areas of high rainfall to areas of low rainfall.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are implementing the part of Anna Walker’s review that will bring relief at last to consumers in the south-west, although I note, of course, that our bills will still be more than £100 more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister say a little more about infrastructure? The thing that puzzles many members of the public is that we live in a wet, temperate climate with lots of rainfall, and yet we constantly talk about having droughts. What more can the Government do to increase the capacity of reservoirs and other infrastructure to avoid that happening?

[Richard Benyon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. Of course, he is right. We want to encourage water companies to continue to invest. A key element of the White Paper is to send a very clear message to the investor community that we value the nearly £100 billion of investment in our infrastructure over the past 22 years and want to see more of it in future. There have been two intentions in that direction: first, not to spook investors by giving the wrong indications about how we want to proceed on competition; and secondly, to say to the investor community, “This is a place of safety and security where you can invest for the long term.” We will still require greater infrastructure and elements of construction that will make our economy and our environment more resilient to the kinds of weather changes that are happening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The fish in our seas are a national resource and what we are talking about, in the reform of this failed policy, is getting a fairer system for the allocation of that resource. Transferable fishing concessions in other countries are sometimes a lever towards better conservation, but I reassure my hon. Friend and fishermen in her constituency that we are not happy with the proposal that has been made thus far. We think it requires much more detail and there are certain elements of it to which we are opposed. We will keep her and the House informed at every stage.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the Minister accept that, however the common fisheries policy is reformed, the biggest threat to fish stocks in our waters and internationally is unsustainable commercial fishing? Given that, what is he doing to ensure that all public procurement of fish in this country, including by this place, is from sustainable sources?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

1. What the authority is for the policy of the Church of England that services of blessing should not be conducted in church premises for those who register civil partnerships.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

In its pastoral statement of July 2005, the House of Bishops affirmed that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership. The Church of England’s response to the Government’s consultation document on civil partnerships on religious premises, which was produced earlier this year, reflected that policy and was approved by the Archbishops Council and by the Standing Committee of the House of Bishops.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am grateful for that reply. Given that when the law changes to allow civil partnerships to be conducted on religious premises many Church of England priests and parishes will want to conduct such ceremonies, would it not be better for the Church of England to do what it did when it first allowed the remarriage of divorcees in church, and allow individual priests and parishes to make the decision?

[Tony Baldry]

In fairness, I would contend that the Church of England, led by its bishops, has to be free to determine its own stance on matters of doctrine and ethics. The Government have said that the new option to register civil partnerships in places of worship must be entirely voluntary. That means that those who think that the Church of England should opt in need to win the argument within the Church.

Waste Review

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for a question that obviously shows that he has read the review. He will know that it contains the startling fact that we waste £12 billion-worth of food a year, which we can ill afford to do. We need to work with all involved in food production and packaging to try to minimise the amount of food waste.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Why is the right hon. Lady sparing the blushes of the Communities Secretary? Was it not always nonsense for a Government to pay lip service to localism but then to try to force local authorities to reintroduce weekly collections? Will she confirm that most of the local authorities that have alternate weekly collections are Conservative-controlled, and that there is a strong correlation between high recycling rates and alternate weekly collections?

[Mrs Spelman]

It is important to encourage councils to respond to what local people want and need. That is the very essence of localism. Therefore, we will proceed with a new commitment from councils to redouble their efforts to listen and respond to the wishes of their residents on refuse collection.

Water and Sewerage Charges (South West Water)

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I have not had the experience before, but it is certainly a pleasure.

Today, I am raising a matter that is of great concern to the people of Devon and Cornwall and has been for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament, and I suspect for longer than any of us here today have represented our local communities. I had the pleasure of raising this issue in an Adjournment debate previously, but this is the first time that I have been able to do so as a Member of Parliament on the Government side of the House. The fact that the problem has remained almost exactly the same for so long is both a reflection of the intractable nature of the issues involved and a sad reflection on the record of previous Administrations. They had time to tackle this injustice, but sadly they were unable to come up with a solution. I sincerely hope that the Minister who is here today will not let our Government follow the same path.

Of course, the problem is the disproportionately high water bills in the south-west. Although the new Ofwat settlement has only just been released, the indication is that the average bill in the region will be £517 a year and the price rise will be about 8.1%. Rather mischievously, Ofwat had initially told the press and the public that the rise would be only about 5%, but that forecast assumed that customers would adapt their behaviour in the future. It is accepted that more people will move to using water meters. Around 70% of water customers in the south-west already have one and Anna Walker predicted that that figure would rise to 80% by 2015. Moving to water meters would save those south-west customers around £400 per year, but the money still has to be found from somewhere. Metered bills will rise in response to the dwindling supply of high-paying unmetered customers, adding more than £200 to the bills of metered customers.

Metering and in-region social tariffs have long been identified by Ofwat and the Government as an easy solution, but they do not have an impact on the underlying problem. Even if one takes the price rise as a 5% average, that is still far too high for most people to cope with in this age of austerity. It is also important to remember that I am talking about average bills. Many of my constituents now face water bills far in excess of £1,000. That reflects a range of circumstances, from medical conditions that require extra water to simply having a larger family. As always, unmetered customers suffer the worst. The average bill of £517 in the south-west compares starkly with the average bill in London, for example, which even for unmetered customers is only £332 per year.

The privatisation of utilities was meant to open up sectors to competition and to empower consumers, but the privatisation of water has done nothing of the sort. Can one imagine the outcry if electricity prices were 60% higher in Newcastle than they are in London? Any electricity company that tried to implement such price disparities would simply see its regional market share evaporate.

Hopefully, we are all aware of the background to this problem. The privatisation of water in the late 1980s left South West Water with a backlog of infrastructure improvements to invest in. Combined with a tiny customer base and a lengthy coastline, that backlog meant that under the system of regional monopolies South West Water customers would pay higher bills in perpetuity, with their only recourse being to move somewhere else in the UK.

For all its inaction, the previous Government at least recognised the problem. The result is Anna Walker’s report on water charging, chapter 14 of which focuses specifically on the south-west. The coalition is about to respond to her report, which again makes this debate timely.

I want to cover briefly three points that are relevant to what is happening now and hopefully the Minister can take them into account when he is developing the final policy on this issue. First, the role of Ofwat needs to be assessed very closely. Ofwat’s role as the regulator must be to protect customers and as Regina Finn, its chief executive, said herself:

“People can shop around for the best deal on many things, but not water. Our job is to do this for them.”

I am afraid that the overwhelming view of my constituents is that that “job” is not being done. Many of them see Ofwat as hindering rather than helping the situation in the south-west. Whereas bills fell slightly ahead of inflation in other areas, the south-west has seen the very large rise that I described.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is not the real scandal of this year’s price increase that customers were assured at the time of the last price review under the Labour Government that there would be reductions in their water bills in this price period? South West Water is hiding behind the current Government’s failure to control inflation. That is a sign of gross insensitivity compared with the situation in, say, local authorities, where everybody else is having their pay frozen.

[Mr Sanders]

I only half-share the right hon. Gentleman’s view, because Ofwat is the body that should protect the consumer and it has allowed South West Water to raise charges by the amounts that I described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

My understanding is that that is the figure over the piece. However, I am happy to look into that and give my hon. Friend an absolutely clear and unequivocal answer, because it is important that we know that figure. In her earlier remarks, I think she raised the point about why we use the retail prices index rather than the consumer prices index. [Interruption.] Sorry it was not her; it was my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. Bills have been tied to inflation since privatisation because, when inflation is higher, water companies’ costs increase. As is the case with other regulators, Ofwat uses RPI. Although RPI was higher than CPI this year, it was actually lower than CPI when last year’s bills were calculated, so average bills that year were lower. We can argue about percentage points, but that is an important factor. Let us take that matter forward in our consultation, which I will come to in a moment.

I am acutely aware that nobody wants to see higher bills, particularly in these tough economic times. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the money raised will pay for £159 million of investment in the region during the next financial year, which will benefit customers. I know that that sounds trite, and I am not diminishing the effect of the increase, but we must recognise that there are also benefits, including £14 million to improve tap water quality, £10 million to repair crumbling sewers and £28 million to further reduce pollution incidents.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Given the severe squeeze on family incomes, would it not have been better for South West Water to have delayed some of that expensive investment and to have frozen the rise? The Minister seems to be giving the impression that the Government do not bear any responsibility for inflation, but it is, of course, his Government who have let inflation rip.

[Richard Benyon]

I chose to ignore the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks about the Government being responsible for the rise in inflation at a time when commodity prices and oil prices are rising. He only has to read the newspapers to see what is happening to food prices and how that is being influenced by so many other different factors. I think I shall move on, because I simply do not accept his point.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Why is inflation in Britain more than twice as high as it is in Germany?

[Richard Benyon]

We could debate that at great length and talk about our reliance on oil, how that might differ from other countries, where we were working from a year ago and the impact of the previous Government’s activities, of whom he was a part. I will be happy to have that debate at another time but, at the moment, I want to talk about the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the impact of the increase in water bills. I also want to talk about the actions that are in my power to take to improve that. I am happy to take any interventions that he may wish to make on that.

We have been carefully considering Ofwat’s final advice in relation to the south-west, which I only received in January. These are difficult issues, and, as has been said, there are no simple solutions. It is essential to ensure that our proposals are workable, fair and affordable, particularly in the current economic climate. We hope to issue our consultation on the Walker review soon, but it is essential that we get this right.

Hon. Members have discussed the differential between metered and unmetered bills. The average bill for a metered household in the south-west is around £400, while the average bill for an unmetered household is around £720. Hon. Members have given examples where both types of bill are considerably higher than those averages. That is because—as we have heard—70% of households in the south-west are metered. Average metered and unmetered bills reflect the estimated water consumption between those households. Unmetered households pay more, because, on average, they use more water than metered households. As hon. Members are aware from previous debates, bills vary between companies. That reflects the cost of providing water and sewerage services in an environmentally sustainable way in different regions with different circumstances.

In all cases, Ofwat—as the independent economic regulator of the water industry—ensures that bills are no higher than they need to be to finance the investment required to provide water and sewerage services. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and others have discussed how unfair it is that 3% of the population pay to clean up 30% of the coastline, and I know that that is the prevailing view in the south-west. The Walker review looked closely at whether environmental improvements are public or private goods and who should pay for them. Anna Walker concluded that spending on environmental improvements, such as cleaner beaches, is largely required to make sure that the disposal of sewage does not harm the local environment and that the benefits are mainly local. In particular, having a sewage system and beautiful clean beaches delivers huge benefits to the region through tourism. I know that there are many people—I am one of them—who enjoy the beaches and the coastline, but who do not pay those bills. The complication of trying to devise a scheme where we can hypothecate is something that not just I, but my predecessors and many others in this House, have sought to tackle.

Support is available now for low-income and vulnerable households. Currently, the national WaterSure tariff caps the bills of qualifying households at the average metered bill for their company. Households qualify for WaterSure if they are metered and in receipt of means-tested benefits, and either have three or more children living at home under the age of 19, or someone in the household who has a medical condition that necessitates a high use of water.

Individual cases were raised today. As they were described to me, those people should qualify, but are not receiving WaterSure. I want to take those cases up. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raised a case about a multiple sclerosis sufferer. I would like to know whether multiple sclerosis has an increased water requirement, and why that case is not covered by WaterSure. That is something that we may have to look at through the consultation that we are about to undertake.

WaterSure ensures that such households do not cut back on their essential use of water due to fears about the size of their bill. This year, some 31,200 households are benefiting from WaterSure and approximately one in three of those households live in the south-west. We are looking at whether WaterSure should offer a more generous cap, which could cap bills at the lower of the national average metered bill, or the company average metered bill, as recommended by Anna Walker. That would deliver substantially lower bills for those households that live in high-cost areas. We are also looking at whether it would be more fair to share the cost of WaterSure across customers in England, rather than fund WaterSure at the company-specific level. We will be inviting views on that when we publish our Walker consultation.

Some have asked why the Government have not made those changes already. We have been considering them alongside Ofwat’s advice on tackling the problem of high water bills in the south-west. I received Ofwat’s final advice only in January. I am sure that hon. Members agree with me that we must ensure that our proposals are workable, fair and have the support of interested parties. I am determined, as I have said frequently—I make no apologies for saying it again, although I wish that we had got there by now—to get this right.

Forestry (England)

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister offer to come and give the Secretary of State his support in executing this humiliating U-turn? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, the real problem is that we have a Prime Minister who almost prides himself in not knowing what is going on in Government Departments, and likes to float above everything as a non-executive chairman. It is he who needs to get a grip, not just the Secretary of State.

[Mrs Spelman]

Well, that might have been the right hon. Gentleman’s experience of the previous Prime Minister, but I have spoken to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions over the last few weeks, as it was quite apparent that we were having difficulty with the consultation. I have been very grateful for his support.

Flood Defence Allocations

Ben Bradshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

We very much want to gear things towards a system where the benefits can be understood by people. That is why the payment-for-outcomes scheme offers so much potential; it offers clarity, for the first time, where the current system is opaque. It will allow communities such as my hon. Friend’s to see where they are in the pecking order, why they are constantly overtaken as our understanding of flood risk management gets better and where they are missing out. Thus, when people and businesses are benefiting, they may choose to contribute and get their scheme above the line. This approach offers her and her constituents a great opportunity.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Can the Minister please explain how the cuts that he is being forced to confirm to the House today are consistent with a very clear assurance given by the Prime Minister to this House during Prime Minister’s questions on 17 November? He said that flood defence spending would be “protected” and would be “roughly the same” as under Labour.

[Richard Benyon]

I hope that we will be able to prove at the end of this process that the spending is broadly the same: an 8% cut compared with the previous four years, but with 15% efficiency savings that we think we can get out of the Environment Agency and a greater understanding of how we can deliver. The right hon. Gentleman must agree that what really matters is the outcome: households protected from flooding. I am really confident that at the end of this process we will be able to produce outcomes that are no worse than those in the past and perhaps even better.