European Environment Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I represented the UK at the European Environment Council meeting in Brussels on 3 March. Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Environment and Climate Change in the Scottish Government, and Alun Davies, Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government, also attended.

After adopting the agenda for the meeting, Environment Ministers discussed the framework for climate and energy in the period 2020 to 2030. The UK was joined by numerous member states, including Germany and France, in supporting a call for an agreement at the European Council in March. The majority of member states endorsed a greenhouse gas target of at least 40% with the UK and Sweden calling for a prospective target of 50% in the context of an ambitious agreement. The Secretary of State clarified that the UK could support a binding EU renewables target of 27% providing it could never become binding on member states nor be translated into national targets via EU-level action. Several member states welcomed the Commission’s proposal for reform of the emissions trading system, with the UK and Denmark calling for reform to be preceded by cancellation of allowances. Some Ministers called for more information and discussion on burden sharing.

Outside of Council, the Secretary of State joined the green growth group in co-signing a letter along with 12 other Ministers from the group, including those from France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The statement called for the European Council in March: to agree on the core elements of a climate and energy framework for 2030; to agree a domestic greenhouse gas target of at least 40%; an EU-level renewable energy target of at least 27% (which should not be translated into binding national targets); and asked the Council to consider the use of high-quality international carbon credits in the context of increasing climate ambition.

The Council considered a presidency compromise text on the proposal to allow member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in all or part of their territory. Most member states, including the UK, supported reopening discussions on the basis of the presidency’s compromise although several noted they would like to see further technical revisions before possible agreement. I stressed that the EU was falling behind the rest of the world in terms of utilising GMOs. I recognised the difficulty for other member states and wanted to ensure there was legally-sound flexibility for countries or regions to opt-out of cultivating GM crops if they so wished. The presidency confirmed that a technical discussion of its compromise proposal would now be taken forward.

There was an exchange of views on greening the European semester. The UK, supported by Lithuania, favoured fostering greater green jobs and resource efficiency but underlined sensitivities around discussing taxation policy in Environment Council. The UK was clear that any decisions on tax should be taken by Finance Ministers in ECOFIN. Most member states supported greening the semester including a shift to “green taxation” and strengthening the role of Environment Ministers. Some advocated greater focus on resource efficiency and the need for indicators and targets. France underlined the costs of inaction while others pointed to the lack of access to finance as a barrier to the uptake of green technology which also had a disproportionate impact on innovative SMEs.

Under other business, the Commission emphasised the urgency of agreeing the ratification of the Kyoto protocol’s second commitment period before the 2015 conference of the parties. The Secretary of State highlighted that agreeing the amendment to the monitoring mechanism regulation under the European Parliament’s mandate risked making mistakes due to the lack of consideration.

The Commission presented its air quality package and noted that poor air quality was the main cause of early mortality in Europe’s urban areas and the economic damage caused through lost workdays and healthcare costs.

The Commission also introduced a communication on tackling illegal wildlife trafficking noting that the trade was a multi-billion euro business and the EU remained a transit point for wildlife products. The UK provided an update on the recent London conference including the launch of the elephant protection initiative. On shale gas, the Commission explained their aim to ensure extraction and exploitation would command support and confidence in all stakeholders. The UK, Poland and Romania stressed the current legislative framework was adequate and questioned the implication that the Commission would bring forward legislation in 18-months’ time. The Commission said the review clause allowed the Commission to take action if member states failed to fulfil their promises. A number of member states supported the establishment of a sub-group to deal with key problems in the review of the large combustion plant best available techniques reference document.

Over lunch, Ministers discussed the soil framework directive. The UK and a majority of member states supported the withdrawal of the current text preferring non-binding measures.

Natural Capital

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Natural Capital Committee has today published its second state of natural capital report. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The committee was established in 2012 as an independent advisory body to Government. It formally reports to the Economic Affairs Committee and was one of the commitments in the Government’s 2011 natural environment White Paper (NEWP).

The role of the Natural Capital Committee is to:

provide advice on when, where and how natural assets are being used unsustainably;

advise the Government on how they should prioritise action to protect and improve natural capital, so that public and private activity is focused where it will have greatest impact on improving well-being in our society; and

advise the Government on research priorities to improve future advice and decisions on protecting and enhancing natural capital.

The three key messages made in the report are:

Some assets are currently not being used sustainably. The benefits we derive from them are at risk, which has significant economic implications;

There are substantial economic benefits to be gained from maintaining and improving natural assets. The benefits will be maximised if their full value is incorporated into decision-making; and

A long-term plan is necessary to maintain and improve natural capital, thereby delivering well being and economic growth.

The Government intend to provide a response to the committee’s report once they have considered its content fully.

Winter Floods

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Since the start of December we have experienced serious flooding from the sea, rivers, and from groundwater. It has officially been the wettest winter on record.

These extreme conditions have led to the flooding of about 7,000 properties across England. I want to express my deepest sympathy for all those who have been affected and thank everyone who has worked tirelessly to deal with the aftermath; they helped protect 1.3 million properties and over 2,500 square kilometres of farmland.

In a few areas of the country, especially in southern England, some flooding is likely to continue into the coming weeks. However, other parts of the country are now making the transition to recovery. It is therefore right that I update the House on further actions being taken to support recovery and prepare for similar events in future.

Help for Somerset

Six weeks ago I visited Somerset and saw for myself the exceptional impact on the county. Local leaders called for two things: first, immediate help to manage the impact; then, rapid action to dredge the rivers.

On immediate help. Government delivered fast. We saw one of the biggest mobilisations ever to protect people, their homes and their livelihoods from encroaching floodwater.

I also asked Somerset’s councils, IDBs and local leaders, working in partnership, to produce an action plan for the long-term management of the levels and moors. I visited Somerset again yesterday, and I am pleased that they have delivered that plan on time. I am placing a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. The plan includes some immediate actions, such as our commitment to dredge 8 km of the Rivers Parrett and Tone. That is the key thing local people asked for. The Environment Agency will start work as soon as it is safe and practical to do so.

Crucially, the plan also considers how to address flood risk over the longer term. Local partners will set up a new body to take more responsibility for water management on the levels, and will establish new ways of funding this. We will help them to do so.

Enhanced approaches to catchment sensitive farming will allow more water to be retained in the upper catchment. Ensuring new developments meet the highest standards for water and drainage will also help manage local flood risk. The plan also sets out other options for managing flood risk over the longer term, including investment in infrastructure.

DEFRA is providing an additional £10 million for Somerset for flood-related work, and I am pleased to confirm that the whole of Government will be contributing to the aims of the plan. The Department for Transport will provide a further £10 million and the Department for Communities and Local Government £0.5 million. This gives a strong base to take forward work. The challenge for the coming months will be to identify which of several longer-term priorities to take forward, and their specific funding streams. Detailed assessments and business cases will be produced for different investment choices, including how they compare to other projects across the country. The plan provides a framework to address these questions. DEFRA and its agencies will continue to support Somerset in doing so, helping secure a sustainable future for the levels and moors.

Help for fishermen

The Government have already established a range of schemes to support affected households, farmers, businesses and local communities. Today I am announcing further measures to support fishermen, who have been hit hard by recent events. I have decided that they should not bear the cost of Trinity lighthouse dues this year, a move that will benefit the industry by up to £140,000. We will also be making financial support available under the European fisheries fund to reimburse up to 60% of the cost of replacing lost or damaged gear, such as lobster and crab pots. We are working with our agencies and the Local Government Association to ensure all these schemes are easy to access, and are delivered quickly.

Electricity supplies

As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, it is important that we learn the lessons from the recent flooding. That process has begun. For example, many people had their Christmas affected by the disruption we saw to electricity supplies.

The response of the network operators to that was strong, with 95.3% of disrupted customers restored within 24 hours. We are grateful to the staff of network operators who worked over the Christmas period to make that happen, often cancelling their own leave.

However, a review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, also published today, highlights areas for improvement with a clear implementation timeline to ensure that, in future, customers experience as little inconvenience as possible.

Though this review has established 23 actions for industry, and two for DECC, there are two clear priorities:

Ensure that network operators have access to better customer contact details, allowing them to contact proactively those who are disrupted to provide accurate information.

The establishment of a single national number for customers to use to contact their network operator in the event of a disruption.

I am placing a copy of this review in the Libraries of both Houses.

Transport

The severe weather disrupted rail, road, air and sea travel over the winter period. Throughout, the vast majority of transport network owners and operators have done their very best to restore services as quickly as possible and keep the country moving.

This is exemplified by the Network Rail announcement on Tuesday that they will be able to reopen the line at Dawlish two weeks earlier than initially expected. The Government recognise the impact that the weather has had on transport infrastructure. To address these issues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has also commissioned a review into the resilience of our transport networks in a future where we are likely to see more extreme weather events.

Many people were affected by the disruption to services at Gatwick on Christmas eve, when localised flooding caused a loss of power to critical systems at the airport. The subsequent review announced by Gatwick’s CEO has now reported, with 27 recommendations. We welcome this review.

It is now for Gatwick Airport to consider the recommendations and the steps necessary for increasing the resilience of the airport.

Central Government

The Government’s emergency committee COBR has taken effective action over the last three months to ensure that the risks are understood and that local responders have the resources they need. We have acted on every request for assistance received.

Over Christmas and the new year, Departments across Whitehall worked closely together to co-ordinate the Government’s response. However, it became apparent that some organisations—outside central Government—were not so actively engaged. In future, whenever there is a significant risk we will use the COBR system to ensure that all organisations, at both national and local level, are aware and fully prepared well in advance.

In order to further strengthen support and the organisation of Government recovery efforts, the Prime Minister has asked me personally to co-ordinate recovery in Somerset as part of a group of ministerial representatives for flood recovery. Those for other areas have also been confirmed today and I am placing a full list in the Libraries of both Houses.

Local government

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is also ensuring that we learn the lessons from how local authorities have responded to the recent flooding. There have been some excellent examples of local authorities who demonstrated good practice in their response. We will continue to work with local government to set out more clearly what council tax payers can reasonably expect from their councils in an emergency. For instance by providing support outside normal business hours, being a visible part of the local response and giving clear advice to residents and businesses on how to plan for emergencies.

We will continue to keep Parliament informed on the Government’s plans to learn other lessons and improve our resilience to flooding.

National Pollinator Strategy

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Following a commitment made in June 2013, I have today launched a consultation on a proposed national pollinator strategy to safeguard the future of pollinators and pollination services. Bees and other insect pollinators play an essential role in our food production and in the diversity of our environment. They face a wide range of environmental pressures, such as habitat loss, pests and diseases, invasive species, use of pesticides and climate change. There are growing concerns that these pressures are leading to declines in the number, diversity and geographical ranges of individual insect pollinator species. We know that the public and Members of this House care deeply about this issue. However there is a great deal of uncertainty about the status of pollinators and what may be causing changes to populations. This is in part due to a patchy evidence base and insufficient monitoring data.

My priority has been to understand what the evidence is telling us and ensure that we are taking the right action. Last summer, an independent expert advisory group, chaired by Professor Charles Godfray, was set up to advise on these matters. This group also provided guidance on the independent report “Status and value of pollinators and pollination services”, published today, which DEFRA commissioned in 2013 to help inform development of the strategy.

The strategy we are consulting on reflects the current evidence and also identifies where we need to know more. It sets out a collaborative plan of action for Government and external organisations to make sure pollinators thrive. This will help provide essential pollination services and benefits for crop production and the wider environment, in line with our commitments in “Biodiversity 2020”. It aims to cover all of the approximately 1,500 insect species that fulfil a pollination role in England.

As we strengthen the evidence base and our understanding of what action is needed increases, the national pollinator strategy will be flexible and adaptive. It will focus on three components:

Investment in research and monitoring to gain a firmer understanding of the nature of the problem and its drivers.

A total of 18 priority actions for Government and others to implement in the interim period, from 2014. These actions are comprehensive, covering management of farmland, towns, cities and public land. They respond to pest and disease risk. The actions also engage the public, sharing knowledge and improving our understanding of the status of pollinators and the service they provide.

A refreshment of our commitment in 2019, once new evidence is available, with a view to updating actions in line with new evidence if necessary.

Government cannot solve this problem alone. Therefore we will continue to work very closely with industry, NGOs, farmers, local government, land managers and others, including the devolved Administrations, to finalise the strategy for publication in summer 2014. Together we will produce an implementation plan, focusing on collaborative action, in the six months after the final strategy is published. I am placing a copy of the strategy and supporting documents in the Libraries of both Houses.

European Environment Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I will represent the UK at the European Environment Council meeting in Brussels on 3 March. Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Environment and Climate Change in the Scottish Government, and Alun Davies, Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government, will also attend.

Following the adoption of the agenda and approval of the list of “A” items, there will be a policy debate on a framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. Member states will be invited to discuss the framework and in particular consider two questions which have been posed by the Greek presidency. First, whether the framework provides the appropriate balance between ambition and flexibility. Secondly, what the next steps should be for the policy debate, taking into account the need to provide certainty for investors in the longer term and the forthcoming international climate negotiations. This is in the context of discussions on the 2030 framework due to take place in the March European Council.

After a series of AOB points relating to climate, Ministers will break for a working lunch. This will provide Ministers with the opportunity for a discussion on the withdrawal of the existing proposal for a soil framework directive and the means of tackling soil degradation in the future. The UK supports the objective of protecting soil but is concerned that the existing proposal lacks sufficient flexibility and could impose additional regulatory burdens. The UK therefore supports the withdrawal of the current dossier as proposed in the Commission’s communication on regulatory fitness (REFIT).

Following the lunchtime discussion, the Council will hold an exchange of views on the proposal that would allow member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory. Ministers will consider the presidency compromise proposal put forward after the recent General Affairs Council debate on the cultivation of a specific GM maize crop. During this debate, a significant number of member states expressed their willingness to revisit the EU legislative framework. Ministers will explore whether there is common ground to reopen the discussions on this legislative file and whether the compromise proposal offers a good basis for further technical work.

The Council will then turn to an exchange of views on non-legislative activities with regard to greening the European semester. In light of the annual growth survey 2014, Council has been asked to discuss the Europe 2020 resource efficiency and low-carbon objectives and the possible involvement of Environment Ministers in the European semester cycle. Ministers have also been asked to consider which measures are currently taken at national level in the areas of resource efficiency and climate action to achieve sustainable growth. The UK is already active in these areas and supports the objectives on sustainable growth. This discussion will be followed by a series of AOB points relating to the environment.

Over the course of the day, the following topics will be covered under “any other business”:

Information from the Commission on a clean air programme for Europe;

Information from the Czech delegation, supported by the Polish and Estonian delegations, on a review of the best available techniques reference document for large combustion plants;

Information from the Commission on the EU approach to wildlife trafficking;

Information from the Commission on the state of play of the Kyoto protocol’s second commitment period ratification;

Information from the Commission on a recommendation regarding the exploration and production of hydrocarbons using high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

Flooding (Somerset)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s recent response to the flooding in Somerset and what action the Government have taken following recent Cobra meetings.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to reply to this question. Let me begin by expressing my sympathy for the serious difficulties local residents face in Somerset as a result of the continuing widespread flooding of the moors and levels since late December, including impacts on properties, businesses, transport and farm land.

Recent Met Office figures show that Somerset received more rainfall in December and January than it would normally receive over an entire winter. The high tides experienced in early January and early February exacerbated the situation by preventing water from flowing out to sea, resulting in rivers overtopping their banks and flooding the surrounding land. Floodwater has covered more than 65 sq km on the levels and hundreds of people have been affected with about 21 properties still flooded. Some 200 people have been cut off in the villages of Muchelney, Thorney, Oath, Stathe and North Moor. I visited Somerset on Sunday 26 and Monday 27 January to witness the situation at first hand and listen to the views of local residents and experts.

On 26 January I held meetings with local MPs and the leader and chief executive of Sedgemoor district council as well as a range of local experts including farmers and representatives of the local internal drainage boards. I held further meetings on 27 January, including with the leader of the county council. We agreed to dredge the Tone and Parrett rivers and on the need for local organisations to come together on a partnership basis to fund the ongoing dredging and de-silting that would subsequently be needed.

We also discussed the potential for action to hold water back in the upper catchments and to consider a longer term project to create a River Parrett barrage. In the light of that visit I asked my officials to work with local authorities and other local partners in Somerset as well as the Environment Agency, Natural England and other Government Departments to develop an action plan over the next six weeks for the sustainable future of the moors and levels. On 29 January, the Prime Minister confirmed that dredging would take place on the moors and levels as soon as it was safe and practical to do so. This will build on the targeted dredging of the Tone and Parrett that the Environment Agency began in the autumn. It will build on what the Environment Agency already spends annually on flood risk management in Somerset and the £100,000 a week spent on pumping operations on the moors and levels.

Local authorities, residents and emergency services have been working around the clock to ensure that people are safe. The Environment Agency is carrying out the largest pumping operation ever undertaken on the levels. In addition to 40 permanent pumps, the Environment Agency has mobilised a further 22 temporary units increasing its ability to pump up by more than 150%. It is currently pumping 1 million tonnes a day.

I have chaired five meetings of Cobra since last Wednesday to ensure that the Government have fully considered how best we can meet the needs of the local communities affected while the floodwater remains. Following those meetings, the Government have taken a number of actions.

First, we have put arrangements in place to ensure that the local transport needs of the cut-off communities are met. The Environment Agency, Somerset county council and local responders under the leadership of the local gold command are working together and have a presence on the ground. I am grateful to those who have assisted with that—for example, the Red Cross provided a vehicle to deliver heavy goods and food and local fire and rescue services provided a ferry service. We have also considered how the military could be used to help on the ground and they remain on standby if needed.

Secondly, sewage and wastewater services are not available in some areas. Support has been provided to affected properties and all necessary mitigation measures have been put in place to guard against any public health risks of contaminated floodwater. As is normal practice, floodwater has been sampled by the local authority since the incident began and advice is being given regularly by the local authorities. I urge everyone in the affected area to heed the clear advice of Public Health England.

Since the beginning of last December, the UK as a whole has experienced a period of exceptionally unsettled weather and there is no sign at present of its abating. Many parts of the country have been subjected to flooding from the sea, rivers, surface water or ground water, and I am extremely grateful for the excellent response by the emergency services, the Environment Agency, and Flood Forecasting Centre staff, and the leadership shown by many local authorities in responding to the floods.

Latest estimates suggest that over 7,500 properties have been flooded since the beginning of December. However, existing defences and improvements to the way in which we respond to incidents meant that we could protect over 1.2 million properties from flooding in the same period. Some 87,500 properties are currently being protected. That reinforces the importance of continuing our investment in flood defence schemes and forecasting capability. I will chair a further meeting of Cobra to discuss our response to the flooding at 5 pm today.

[Maria Eagle]

This is an unimaginably stressful and distressing time for those in Somerset who have seen their homes and businesses ruined by floodwater, and more flooding has been reported in Devon and Cornwall this morning. The emergency services and Environment Agency staff deserve our thanks for their efforts on the ground in difficult conditions, yet despite those efforts it is clear that residents in Somerset have been badly let down. When the water first rose, it took far too long to provide the pumps, sandbags and other assistance they needed. We have seen meeting after meeting of Cobra, yet there is little coherence in the Government’s strategy for dealing with the crisis.

Will the Secretary of State set out what precise steps he took between 6 January this year, when he last reported to the House, and last weekend, when the Prime Minister was forced to intervene and tell him to get his skates on? Does he still think that calling for a report “within six weeks”, as he did when he visited Somerset last Monday, is an adequate response? The Prime Minister has said that

“dredging will start as soon as it is practical”.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is Government policy? I think I heard him say that some dredging took place on the levels this autumn. Will he confirm that my understanding of what he said in the statement is correct? Will he admit that he knew a year ago of the specific threat of serious flooding in the Somerset levels from the Association of Drainage Authorities, which warned of

“de-silting work on rivers in areas such as the Somerset Levels having all but ceased”,

and what did he do about it? Why did he remove the aim to

“prepare for and manage risk from flood and other environmental emergencies”

from his Department’s list of priorities when he got the job, replacing that with four of his own?

Is the Secretary of State still refusing to be briefed by his own chief scientific adviser on climate change and the implications for more extreme weather conditions? Will he confirm that he has had to correct previously published figures on flood prevention funding, contradicting his claims that the Government are spending more in this four-year period than in the previous four years? Will he admit that the corrected figures reveal that funding for flood protection has fallen from £670 million in 2010-11 to £576 million in the current financial year? Will he admit that £67.6 million of partnership funding has been raised since April 2011, not the £148 million that he repeatedly claims?

Finally, will the Secretary of State apologise to those affected by flooding in Somerset for the decision to use a premium rate number for the flooding helpline? Will he name the company that is making money from those who have already lost so much? The Prime Minister has now said the line will cease to be a premium rate line. When precisely will that happen?

The Prime Minister promised the Leader of the Opposition that the Secretary of State would come back to the House with a “full assessment” of levels of support for flood protection by the end of last month. He failed to do so. Does that not typify the Secretary of State’s whole response to the floods? After his botched badger cull and now his failure on flooding, it is no wonder that people are increasingly asking whether the Secretary of State is up to the job.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Cobra has met regularly since the Christmas period, and obviously the floods and levels were regularly mentioned. The first specific request was at last Wednesday’s Cobra, which was acted on immediately by Government agencies responding to Cobra.

The hon. Lady mentioned the six weeks. I described briefly the fact that I went down to Somerset the Sunday before last, had meetings on Sunday evening, meetings on Monday, and agreed, quite clearly, a plan, which had to be worked up in detail with the Environment Agency and with the internal drainage boards. That is a marked contrast with the previous Government, who sat on the Parrett catchment flood management plan way back in 2008 and did absolutely nothing about it.

We began dredging on key points. The hon. Lady goes on and on about DEFRA’s priorities. I boil DEFRA down to two simple priorities across a kaleidoscopic variety of activities: to grow the rural economy and to improve the environment. I cannot think of any activity that involves spending central Government money that better delivers those two key priorities than what we are doing on flood spending. That is why this Government will be spending £2.4 billion in the first four years of this Parliament compared with £2.2 billion in the last four years of the previous Parliament. The hon. Lady has to nod just once—just give one little nod—to confirm that Labour Members will back this Government’s growing spending plans on flood spending. For us, it is a priority; for them it is not. She has missed her chance, but there is still a chance. Will she please agree to match our increased spending plans for this Parliament?

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

These are sad days for the people of Somerset, but local heroes have emerged. We must not use the Environment Agency as a political football. We need to revisit the balance of spending between urban and rural areas. Will my right hon. Friend allow the internal drainage boards to retain their moneys to themselves before the maintenance of these watercourses and look for a scheme similar to that in my own constituency to store the water upstream if appropriate?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for her question. She is absolutely right that there is a balance to be struck. The lesson in Somerset is that it is an extraordinary environment. It is completely artificial. It was first dredged by the Dutch before the time of Charles I, way back in the 17th century. Our criteria are not applicable in an environment where the rivers are, in effect, canals. We need to treat it as a unique environment and therefore bring in local knowledge. At the meetings I had last Sunday and Monday, it was very clear that this had to be a combined effort of the Environment Agency doing the dredging, and then, for future years, allowing locals to take over and come to their own arrangements. There will be close involvement of local councils and colleagues from the Department for Communities and Local Government to work out how that will be funded and organised.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the measures he has announced to address the very serious problems on the Somerset levels will not delay investment in the south-west’s main priority in relation to flood defences—namely, the upgrading of the Exeter flood defence to protect the railway line and thousands of businesses and homes after last year’s floods, which caused huge economic damage and devastation not only to parts of Somerset but the whole of Devon and the whole of Cornwall?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to remind us of how damaging the floods were last year and the impact on the railway line, which I saw for myself. Significant work is going on on that line as we speak, as has been discussed in Cobra this week. It is absolutely our intention to deliver the very significant programmes that will soon come forward; we will announce the details shortly.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does not the recent trouble show the problems of having unelected quangos taking decisions that favour environmentalism rather than the concerns of people and businesses? Is it not better to have democratic accountability through a Secretary of State in whom the people of Somerset can have confidence?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It shows that this is a team effort. The Environment Agency has done remarkable work around the country in protecting 1.1 million houses. I fully respect and publicly thank the chairman and the chief executive of the Environment Agency, and all those working for it. We then have the “but”. The Somerset levels is a unique environment. It is not typical—it is artificial and all below sea level—and it requires a lot more local involvement. That is why I went down there last Sunday and Monday. I think we have come up with an arrangement that will be satisfactory and, I hope, deliver security to all the people on the levels for the next 20 years once we have worked out the detail of how to deliver, first, the Environment Agency doing the dredging, and secondly, democratically elected local councils working with the IDBs to deliver long-term dredging and maintenance.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of modelling done by the university of Cardiff that shows that a Severn barrage, operating on ebb flood, would significantly protect the Somerset levels from flooding and act as a barrier against storm surge, protecting 500 sq km and many properties from flooding? Is that not a reason for pressing ahead with the barrage?

[Mr Paterson]

I admire the right hon. Gentleman for grabbing the opportunity to promote that project, of which he is a very strong supporter. I remind the House that some are very hostile to it because of the barrage’s environmental consequences.

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

I can only speak as a local Somerset MP, but we have had nothing but help from the Secretary of State. Cobra has done a damned good job and I assure the House that, other than, I think, two days, the Secretary of State has spoken to me every day about what we require to help us in the area. I am very grateful to him for that.

I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) said, and the Environment Agency people on the ground have done a phenomenal job—they have been superb. The problem lies at the top. There is a disconnect between what goes on here in London and what is going on in the levels in Taunton Deane and Somerset and Frome. We need to sort this out and I hope the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will get those machines on the levels as fast as possible in order to get this sorted. That will not sort out everything, but it will give people confidence where there is none at the moment.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) were both present at the two meetings in which we discussed the broad outline of the plan. As he knows, having represented the area for some years, it is simply not possible—[Interruption] regardless of the chuntering from the Opposition Benches—to get machines on the banks in these conditions. We are looking at technologies that could be borne from vessels as a means of getting going. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely clear—there was virtual unanimity in our meetings—that we want to get on and get the two rivers dredged at the earliest opportunity, and then hand over to the local representative of the internal drainage boards to carry out the routine maintenance. [Interruption.] To respond to the questions being asked by Opposition Members, that will happen when it is safe to do so.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

May I press the Secretary of State on what he has said about the public health risk of contaminated water? Last weekend microbiologists found 60,000 to 70,000 bacteria per 100 ml; the World Health Organisation suggests that the safe level is 1,000. Other than raising public awareness of the possible risks, what can the Department do to mitigate the impact?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point, which has had some publicity. We have already had samples taken from around the levels and Public Health England has been very vocal in making it clear to all local residents that they should be extremely careful with their personal hygiene and, obviously, that they should not drink or bathe in the water. The standards set are for drinking water. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue, which we have discussed on several occasions at Cobra. It is vital, given the current difficult circumstances and the enormous amount of water on the levels, to realise that the water is going to be dirty and contaminated. People must be really careful about washing themselves and, in particular, washing wounds.

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

In Somerset we are getting increasingly bemused by the number of armchair experts from hundreds of miles away who seem to know more about the levels than we do. The right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I want him to do in terms of dredging and the long-term management of the moors and levels, and I thank him, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), and the Prime Minister for listening and acting on that.

On an entirely local issue, I went down to the villages of Long Load and Long Sutton again over the weekend and they are cut off because of a collapsed bridge. They need an alternative crossing over the river or repairs to the bridge. Will the Secretary of State look into that and see whether something urgent can be done?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, until recently, ministerial colleague for his support and advice. We have of course discussed this matter frequently over the past year. He better grab me immediately after this urgent question and give me the details, so that I can raise it at Cobra, because it is exactly the sort of thing that we are trying to fix at Cobra.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is far too courteous to interpret the Secretary of State literally. Perhaps spectators to the event will be able to testify one way or the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for praising the work of the emergency services. He may not be aware that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is sitting next to him, is recklessly cutting the number of firefighters: there will be 5,000 fewer in England by 2015 than there were in 2010. Will he ask the Secretary of State to stop those cuts and will he recommend that the Pitt review, which suggested that a statutory responsibility should be given to fire and rescue services, be implemented without further delay?

[Mr Paterson]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to look in the mirror and reminds himself that his Government left us borrowing £400,000 a minute. I want publicly to praise all those in the fire services: they have supplied specialist vehicles that have been of great succour to those on the levels, and I really admire the work that they have done around the country. The fire services have been key during this very difficult period—over Christmas, the new year and right through January—and I am very grateful to them for the splendid job that they have done.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

May I commend the Secretary of State for his consultation with local people in Somerset? Following the consultation that he—or the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson)—had with Cornwall’s local authority in Westminster a few weeks ago, is there any way that he can report back to us about rebalancing the Bellwin formula, which disadvantages Cornwall county council?

[Mr Paterson]

I have many responsibilities, but the Bellwin scheme is not one of them. I will, however, make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government heard that point.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

A number of homes in my constituency were flooded once the brooks stopped being cleared. What confidence can my constituents have that their homes will not be flooded again, given the scale of the cuts in spending on flood protection that have taken place under this Government?

[Mr Paterson]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are spending £2.4 billion, which is more than the previous Government, over this spending round. On local brooks—this picks up earlier questions—we set in train seven pilots last year to see whether some low-risk waterways could be cleared by local farmers or local landowners, with the collaboration of the Environment Agency, so that we get more work done on low-risk areas.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State call in the chairman of the Environment Agency and ask why, from a budget of £1,200 million last year, it spent only £20 million on clearing watercourses? Will he get across to the chairman that we need new budget priorities—not just in Somerset, which is the subject of the urgent question, but in places such as mine—to clear watercourses so that people do not have wet rooms?

[Mr Paterson]

As I have said, I have great confidence in what the Environment Agency, led by the chairman and by the chief executive, has delivered in protecting 1.1 million properties. However, as my right hon. Friend says, we can always do better. One thing I am looking at is getting more low-risk water clearance work done locally, with local councils being more involved, and with local agencies and more IDBs. This is very much a team effort.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why were there no floods on the other side of the River Severn on the Gwent levels? They have an identical environment, share 2,000 years of drainage history, have had the same weather and tides, and have had no dredging, but have had no floods. Is not the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) right to say that the answer lies in the fact that the woods in Gwent are richly endowed with trees, and have not been denuded in the same way as on the Mendips?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am not an expert on the Gwent levels, but I have made it clear that, for the long term, there is a role for holding water further back in the catchment, as there is possibly a role for building a barrage on the Parrett. Those would be special measures for a very particular landscape, but his own landscape of the Gwent levels have their own characteristics, on which I am not an expert.

[Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)]

As I stood in Burrowbridge yesterday morning with the water in the River Parrett again breaching the banks, the residents expressed considerable relief that the Prime Minister had committed in this House on Wednesday to the dredging of the River Parrett and the River Tone. However, I must say to the Secretary of State that there was scepticism and even cynicism about whether that would happen, when it would take place and on what scale. I would be grateful if he would take this opportunity to reassure the residents of that village and people across the Somerset levels that dredging will take place to the level that they think is appropriate to reduce the risk of flooding next year.

[Mr Paterson]

I am very happy to repeat that it is our clear intention to dredge the Tone and the Parrett as soon as it is safe to do so. That will be conducted by the Environment Agency. It is looking at technologies now. Part of the plan is for routine maintenance to be carried out in future years by the internal drainage boards, which do a very good job and have many experienced local people on them. That is absolutely our intention. However, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the banks are not safe at the moment, so if we are to use any technologies immediately, they will have to be vessel-borne.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lessons that are coming out of the horror in Somerset are equally applicable across the whole country? Will he ensure that the Environment Agency starts to do the things that he has been talking about so well?

[Mr Paterson]

I stress again that this is a team effort. The Environment Agency has done a great job at protecting 1.1 million properties. However, it is quite clear from going around the counties of rural England, including Herefordshire and Berkshire, that there is exasperation at the lack of work on low-risk rural waterways, which stopped under the last Government. It is clear that that work is much better done by local people. It should be carried out by local landowners in co-operation with IDBs and local councils. That is why I started the seven pilots. We want to apply the lessons from those as quickly as possible across rural England.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Residents of Bradford-on-Avon have been heard to say that they have more in common with those just across the border in Somerset than in the rest of Wiltshire. Since Christmas, they have been dealing with the consequences of a 25-year flood event. Whatever action it is necessary for the Secretary of State to commit to in the Somerset levels, will he ensure that funds are available for any measures that are agreed to between the Environment Agency and local councillors to protect Bradford-on-Avon from a repeat of the recent flood damage?

[Mr Paterson]

I obviously cannot pre-empt the priorities that will be decided on by the Environment Agency shortly. I stress that our partnership scheme has brought in significant funds from local councils. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman’s council is involved in that partnership method of raising money.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that this is a team effort. Will he confirm today that the money that has been identified for new flood defences is still available if Cornwall council puts forward an appropriate bid for better defences to protect my constituents in Perranporth, who have suffered dreadful flooding all year?

[Mr Paterson]

As my hon. Friend will have noted, we have an ambitious programme of flood defence schemes that goes right through to 2021. Significantly, that has not been matched by Her Majesty’s official Opposition. If her council puts in a partnership bid, I am sure that it will slot into our programme in the coming years, although I cannot promise when.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Once the waters have subsided and the Secretary of State starts to put right the wrongs of the past, will he have an urgent review of the use of sandbags, which are an old technology and are actually quite porous, when new technologies are available? My constituent, Simon Crowther, has flood protection solutions that deliver better results than sandbags.

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There may well be better alternatives to sandbags. I would be very interested to hear from him if his constituent’s solution is as easy to move around as empty sandbags, because that has proved to be invaluable in recent weeks.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State was right to mention the Dutch engineers who drained the levels, because they dug out the ditches and rivers and kept them clean, which was absolutely key. We have now had six weeks of flooding. I welcome what the Secretary of State has done, but we need to change the rules to ensure that farmland and environmental land is protected, because six weeks of flooding destroys not only farmland, but nature conservation and people’s lives.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I remind him that we are protecting significant areas of agricultural land as we speak, but my view of the future, as he has probably picked up, is that many of the low-risk waterways are much better cleaned out and maintained by local landowners, in co-operation with the Environment Agency. That is probably the best way to go.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I hope that the Secretary of State will applaud the fantastic work of the Somerset Community Foundation and its hardship fund, which is helping people who are suffering financial difficulties as a result of the flooding. Does he agree that the whole catchment approach should include the Rivers Axe and Brue and that it should involve dredging, repairing the Bleadon sluice gates, installing more flood gates and more pumps for local protection, and ensuring that we value productive land?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right that they are part of the whole catchment of the levels, and the relevant internal drainage board will be involved in the discussions. As she probably already knows, the River Brue is one of our pilot schemes.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will obviously be aware, as we all are, that the Environment Agency, local authorities and others will be rethinking their programmes after the flood waters retreat. It appears to me that in the past the payment of funds, and certainly central funds, has gone mainly to major schemes. I am delighted to hear that he is moving towards more minor schemes. Does he agree that the collection of small schemes might be more effective in some areas than one or two large schemes, be they in Somerset or north Surrey?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right that there is merit in a lot of the smaller, low-risk schemes. What we have seen in the levels—it is a completely unique environment—is that the national guidelines were not appropriate for that artificial environment, and the same might apply in other parts of rural England.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

If the pastures of the Somerset levels remain inundated for much longer, considerable damage will be done. Will the Secretary of State be able to give farmers advice and help to re-establish those pastures so that they can continue in business?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that comment, because several of the farmers I have talked with were emphatic that, following the very wet summer we had last year, the grass could be permanently damaged. We are absolutely prepared to work very closely with organisations such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association to help those famers. I also pay tribute to the agricultural charities, which have also been very helpful on the matter.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I declare an interest as one of the 7,500 people who have had their homes flooded. With Gatwick being knocked out on 24 December and with thousands of houses being planned to be developed in the flood area of the River Mole, the expenditure committed to flood defence is wholly inadequate if we are to continue with the development policy in place at the moment. There needs to be a strategic review for the balance of our priorities as a country.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are absolutely clear that current planning guidance steers property development away from floodplains. In the overwhelming number of cases—over 95%, I think—in which the Environment Agency recommends that a planning application should not go ahead, that advice is accepted.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

On Saturday morning I visited the North Corner pontoon at Devonport and saw at first hand bits of the sea wall falling off into the River Tamar. Will my right hon. Friend have a chat with Poole city council and the Environment Agency to ensure that some work is done fairly promptly, because otherwise it will have a significant impact not only on flooding, but on the dockyard, which is bang next door to it?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am afraid that around the coast we have seen significant damage done to our coastal defences, and we are working closely with the Environment Agency and local councils to ensure that it is repaired speedily.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

We all, of course, have enormous sympathy with those in Somerset and elsewhere, including places such as Hambledon in my constituency which has been flooded by ground water for three weeks now, and expects to be flooded for at least another three weeks, or perhaps six or eight. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is at least a crumb of comfort in the fact that the recent Water Bill contains provisions for the creation of Flood Re, which should allow the continued provision of affordable flood insurance to most properties in Somerset and elsewhere?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Flood Re will, I hope, bring relief to 500,000 people with high-risk properties, and as he knows, the Bill is going through the other place this afternoon.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I grew up on the Somerset levels, and when I was a child, farmers were responsible for managing and carrying out drainage on their small waterways. Unfortunately, over the decades, the advice they have received has started to become more conflicting and the different priorities of Natural England and the Environment Agency have caused great confusion and inconsistency. In future, after the emergency has passed, will my right hon. Friend ensure that on dredging policy those two agencies sing from the same hymn sheet?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I assure him that Natural England will be involved in the discussions that start tomorrow. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), will chair the first meeting to deliver the plan within six weeks.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Environment Agency correctly identifies housing as the principal driver of where flood defences should be built, and the Secretary of State saw the scheme in Warrington that was completed three months ago and prevented the flooding of 1,500 houses. For the avoidance of doubt, will he assure the House that there will be no knee-jerk reaction to change criteria after the tragedy in Somerset?

[Mr Paterson]

I saw the real value of those schemes when my hon. Friend kindly invited me to his constituency, and I assure him that it is our intention to continue similar schemes around the country.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

On the better use of technology, will the Secretary of State clarify and confirm that the Government have allocated £4.6 million towards the better use of space technology for weather prediction? It would mean that the United Kingdom is one of only a few countries in the world doing that.

[Mr Paterson]

The Government invest significant sums in forecasting, and, as someone who has received storm forecasts on a daily basis and paid close attention to them in recent weeks, I know that their accuracy is extraordinary and of huge value. I thank all those who have been active in drawing up those forecasts at short notice.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

If there had been a change of wind in Suffolk, we may have suffered similar levels of flooding to that experienced by constituents in Somerset, which might explain the Gwent issue. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in future he might look again at having the Environment Agency and Natural England as two separate bodies? He is currently advertising for a chairman of the Environment Agency, so this could be an opportune moment to merge the two.

[Mr Paterson]

A triennial review concluded last year that it was better to leave the two organisations as independent because it would be a hugely complicated task to legislate to bring them together. However, the review made it clear—this touches on an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace)—that there needs to be more co-operation between the two organisations, and that significant efficiencies could be made by working together.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I represented the UK at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 16 December in Brussels. Richard Lochhead MSP, Alun Davies AM and Michelle O’Neill MLA also attended. I covered the agricultural issues while the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), covered the fishery issues which were reported on in separate letters dated 20 December 2013 and the last three any other business items on nutrition and labelling, animal plant and control package: smarter rules for safer food, and market access from Russia.

The legislative “A” points were approved, which included the package of five common agricultural policy regulations. The four main regulations were published on 21 December, while a transitional regulation was published on 27 December. Also approved was the cohesion package on which I abstained. Germany and I voted against the extension of the scope of the European globalisation adjustment fund.

The non-legislative “A” points included a Council regulation to fix certain agricultural prices and refunds, which Germany and I abstained on.

Promotion of agricultural products

The Council noted the Commission’s proposal for a new regulation on promotion of agricultural products. I welcomed the focus on exports and simplification but queried the budget increase. The Commission stressed that its aim was to boost efficiency and value for money, including through producers involvement as they would have more incentive to put together good schemes if they were to bear more of the cost.

Any Other Business

National emissions ceilings directive

Germany requested that the Commission report to the Agriculture Council on the progress of its proposal to revise the national emissions ceilings directive. Germany was concerned by the potential impact of ammonia emission ceiling reductions on Europe’s agricultural industry. I supported the request. The Commission noted that the impacts on agriculture were fully considered within the Commission.

Organic agriculture

The Commission presented the results of its consultation on the future of organic agriculture regulation. It found that the majority of respondents were in favour of greater harmonisation and removing derogations from the legislation. I urged pragmatism and recommended focusing on opportunities for growth and exports including with China.

Dairy sector—September 2013 conference

The Commission presented the findings of its recent conference which considered the future of the dairy sector following the end of quotas in 2015. Many member states argued that while they were not calling for the return of quotas, they did see the case for some “collective management” of the sector or for greater focus on producer returns. I urged the EU not to move back towards market management, but to leave producers to take advantage of growing global demand for dairy products.

Local farming and direct sales labelling scheme

The Commission presented its report concluding that a specific, voluntary labelling scheme may help producers to market and sell their products locally and in short supply chains. The presidency urged member states to save discussion of this until early 2014 as the incoming Greek presidency had committed to taking this issue forward.

Rice: problems in the sector

Italy presented a paper highlighting the problems faced by the EU rice sector with significant increases of duty free imports from some countries, particularly Cambodia and Burma. Italy suggested it might be time to consider safeguard measures. The Commission assured the Council that it monitored the EU rice sector, but noted that the EU was not self-sufficient in rice, and it would be premature to consider safeguard measures.

Nutrition labelling

The Italian delegation introduced a paper expressing concerns about the UK’s voluntary front of pack nutrition labelling. They cited concerns over: disruption to the internal market, consumer confusion and incompatibility with European quality schemes. My hon. Friend clarified the UK’s position: the scheme was voluntary and experience over eight years of similar colour coded schemes by most domestic retailers had not caused any disruption to the internal market. However 17 member states supported Italy. The Commission in its response made clear that such voluntary schemes were left to the discretion of individual member states and that it would take action in any cases where the internal market did become seriously disrupted. The Commission reported that it had received assurances from the UK about the voluntary nature of the scheme and its monitoring arrangements.

Animal, plant and control package: smarter rules for safer food

The Council took note of the presidency’s progress report on the five elements of the smarter rules for safer food package. Member states intervened on a variety of issues in the package: a positive list of plant products allowed in order to give greater protection against imports of pests; concerns over the introduction of fees in the controls package; concerns with the high number of delegated acts and the value of merging separate pieces of legislation.

The Greek delegation informed the Council that the package would be a priority and hoped to produce a preliminary compromise text to enable the Italian presidency to begin negotiations with the European Parliament.

Market access to Russia for plants and plant products

The Commission updated the Council on negotiations with Russia on the export of plants and plant products from the EU. Russia had phytosanitary concerns and blocked imports of some plant products. Russia was, at the same time, insisting that the EU accept imports of some Russian products which the EU had phytosanitary concerns about. The Commission would continue with the negotiations, being “cautiously optimistic” that the export ban would be lifted in the near future.

Environment Council

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I represented the UK at the European Environment Council meeting in Brussels on 13 December. Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Environment and Climate Change in the Scottish Government, and Alun Davies, Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government, also attended.

After adopting the list of legislative and non-legislative “A” items, Environment Ministers held an exchange of views on a proposal for a regulation on monitoring, reporting and verification of C0₂ emissions from ships. I set out the UK’s objective of securing a global agreement under the International Maritime Organisation but confirmed the UK’s view that the scope of the Commission’s proposal is broadly appropriate. The majority of other member states who spoke agreed with the UK that a global measure is the main objective and that the scope of covering ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, but not gases other than C0₂, is appropriate. Views diverged with regard to transparency of information. Denmark emphasised the importance of exposing data to public scrutiny, while Cyprus and Malta highlighted the commercial risk of disclosing data for individual vessels.

The Commission introduced its proposal on tackling invasive alien species (IAS), underlining its intention to focus only on species non-native to the EU. During the orientation debate, there was universal support for an EU system to tackle IAS. It became apparent, however, that there is a need to revise the principles used to devise the list of species and acknowledge the importance of regional co-operation, which was strongly supported by most member states. The majority of member states, including the UK, indicated their opposition to capping the total number of IAS on the proposed list of Union concern. There was a large group of member states, including the UK, also in favour of extending measures to IAS native to the EU. The Commission recognised that a cap is problematic. It also noted the support for including non-EU IAS and agreed to consider if and how this could be achieved through existing provisions.

In other business, the presidency provided an update on the failure to reach agreement in the Energy Council of 12 December on the proposed directive to address the indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. The presidency then introduced the outcome of the 19th session of the conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change (C0P19). Looking ahead at the timeline for developing the EU’s contribution, Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden and the UK all emphasised the importance of the March Council and of the June ministerial meeting.

The presidency gave an update on the state of play and way forward on EU ETS/aviation. France, Germany, Finland and the UK all argued that the Commission’s proposal does not reflect the political nature of the issue and underlined the importance of making progress in the International Civil Aviation Organisation on a global solution. Also under other business, the Commission introduced its new proposal on plastic bags, which has been adopted in response to calls from the Council and the huge reaction to the Commission’s public consultation. I welcomed the flexibility included in the Commission’s proposal and highlighted the progress made nationally in reducing carrier bag usage. I also stressed the UK’s willingness to work together with other member states and the Commission to develop a truly biodegradable plastic bag.

Greece presented the work programme for its presidency. They hope to seek agreement on EU ETS/aviation, the shipment of waste, the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade and fluorinated gases. Ministers then broke for a working lunch, during which we discussed the post-2015 development framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

About 5 million properties in England are at risk of flooding. The flood defences protected more than 1 million properties during recent events. More is being spent during this spending review period than ever before. That will better protect 165,000 houses from flooding. In the six-year period from 2015-16, we will invest a record £2.3 billion in capital improvement projects, which will improve the protection for a further 300,000 households.

[Bill Esterson]

That is a remarkable answer, given that on 9 September, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), told my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that total expenditure on flood defences was projected to fall from £646 million in 2010-11 to £546 million in 2015-16. Given those figures and the scale of the recent flooding, will the Secretary of State say how flood defences such as those in my constituency will be repaired? Will he confirm whether he will press for additional funds for flood defence repairs?

[Mr Paterson]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it gives me the chance to tell the House, yet again, that the Government are spending more in this spending round than was spent by the previous Government and that we plan to increase the amount to a record £2.3 billion up to 2021. Thanks to the fact that we have galvanised local councils through the partnership funding scheme, there will be all sorts of opportunities for his constituents to work with him and his local council to access more funds for flood schemes.

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

It is remarkable that the flood defences have held to the extent that they have during the battering that the country has taken. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the House that he will review the budget for repairs to existing flood defences and look favourably on schemes such as the maintenance by drainage boards of the regular watercourses that protect farmland and other properties?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her question. What she says about maintenance is absolutely correct. In November, it was found that 97% of the defences were in a good condition and would remain so within our existing budgets. I repeat again that we have made a clear commitment up to 2021. I would love to see the shadow Secretary of State stand up and say that the Labour party will back that commitment.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

10. Although there were major flood alerts, there was a lucky escape for the vast majority of residents of my constituency. I thank all those involved, particularly Natural Resources Wales, which has improved defences in recent years and, crucially, ensured that there have been no flood protection job losses. Given how severely Wales was affected by the floods, the size of our coastline and our exposure, will the Secretary of State consult the Welsh Government closely about the resource to be given to Wales in the future?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about those who have worked so hard, and that situation was reflected across the country. As she rightly says, this is a devolved issue, and the Welsh Secretary and representatives of the Welsh Government have obviously been involved in our numerous Cobra meetings. I will be happy to pass on her comments, but I suggest that she takes up the matter directly with the Welsh Government and the Welsh Secretary.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the extensive damage along the west Wales coastline, particularly in Ceredigion in the Aberystwyth and Borth areas. Flooding is a devolved matter, as he says, but is the prospect of a bid to the European Union solidarity fund, specifically set up for the restoration of defences and infrastructure, a feature of the discussions that he has had and will have with colleagues in Cardiff and the Secretary of State for Wales?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, which is well worth the Welsh Government and the Welsh Secretary taking up. We are happy to help liaise with him, but ultimately we have to respect devolution, and if it is an issue of money for Wales, it is down to the Welsh Government to negotiate it.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

When he became Secretary of State in September 2012, the right hon. Gentleman reviewed his Department’s priorities. Why did his new list of four priorities make no reference to preparing for and managing risks from flood and other environmental emergencies, as the old list of priorities and responsibilities had done?

[Mr Paterson]

That gives me a perfect opportunity to explain the huge gain for the economy from our ambitious flood schemes. Very shortly after I took over, I met the noble Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency, at a brilliant £45 million scheme in Nottingham, which was not just protecting 12,000 houses but, on the other side of the river, freeing up a whole area of blighted land, which is now up for development.

My first priority is to grow the rural economy, and I am delighted to say that our ambitious schemes will help to do that. I just wish that, in her second question, the hon. Lady would say the Labour party endorse our plans.

[Maria Eagle]

When asked by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the £54 million of extra savings from his departmental budget announced by the Treasury in June 2013 would come from, he said:

“We will concentrate on my four priorities, so it is as simple as that. Pretty well every single activity in Defra has to be focused through those four priorities.”

Those priorities do not include flood protection. How can people facing an increasing risk of flood damage due to the effects of climate change have any confidence in a Secretary of State who has downgraded flood protection as a priority and thinks that climate change is benefiting Britain?

[Mr Paterson]

Dear, oh dear, this is lame stuff. We are spending £2.3 billion over the course of this Parliament, with £148 million of partnership money. We have an extra £5 million for revenue, and in the course of the recent reduction across Departments I specifically excluded flood defence, so the reduction is spread across the rest of DEFRA. Uniquely, we have a programme going right out to 2021, with £2.3 billion. Yet again—this is the fifth opportunity—the hon. Lady has not agreed to match our commitment. If you want flood defences, you vote Conservative.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Every time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Streeter]

Every time we have floods in the far south-west, our vital rail link with the rest of the country is either severed completely or severely disrupted. Is my right hon. Friend confident that, within the existing resources and his excellent existing budget in the Department, sufficient priority is being given to flood prevention measures for vital transport infrastructure?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I went to Exeter, I saw the real damage to the economy of the south-west caused by the important link to Exeter being interrupted by floods last year. I can reassure him that there have been senior Ministers from the Department for Transport at our Cobra meetings, and they are fully aware of the consequences and have been working hard to ensure that our transport links have been restored rapidly.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

4. What his Department’s latest evaluation is of the badger cull pilots.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

We are waiting for the independent expert panel to report its findings, and we will consider all information the pilots have generated and decide on our next steps in due course.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Everybody wants bovine TB to be defeated, but there is great scepticism out there that this tactic was ever going to work. Will the Secretary of State say when we can expect all the evidence to be published on the risks associated with culling?

[Mr Paterson]

That is a perfectly valid question but we must wait for the independent panel. That panel is independent and I do not want to put any pressure on it. It has a large amount of data from the two pilots that it will analyse for safety, humaneness and effectiveness. We must be patient and wait for it to report.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on taking action to hold the pilot culls, but it is now necessary to analyse them and in particular to look at the Somerset scheme, where trapping was very effective. In Devon we need a full-scale cull to get control of this disease, as they have done in the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and he is right to say that we cannot ignore this disease, as the previous Government did. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the Republic of Ireland. I met Simon Coveney, the Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, at the Oxford Farming Conference, and he told me that thanks to the policies adopted by the Republic of Ireland, the disease there is at its lowest level since records began.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has delivered an unscientific cull that has spectacularly failed, that his own Back Benchers are openly questioning, that has weakened the reputation of DEFRA and Natural England for evidence-based policy, and from which the Prime Minister’s office is reported to be working up an escape plan. Will he now commit to bring the report of the independent expert panel to this House for a debate in Government time, and put to a vote any further proposals on badger culling?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question but I remind him that last time this issue came before the House, the Government had a good majority of 61. I am not prepared to put any pressure on the independent panel; it is up to it to take its time to evaluate the evidence and report to us, and we will come back in due course.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If the panel finds that the pilots were ineffective, what will the Government do?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We will obviously analyse the reasons the panel puts forth in its report. He asks a hypothetical question, and all I can say is that we just have to look at other countries. There is no doubt that if we look at Australia, the scientific evidence shows that it is now TB free. We can look at the United States and the white-tailed deer, the brushtail possum in New Zealand, or Ireland, which I have just cited. The Republic of Ireland is a scientific, practical example because by bearing down on the disease in cattle and in wildlife, it has got it down to the lowest level since records began. We will follow its example.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

5. What progress he has made in requiring water companies to introduce social tariffs; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Government do not require water companies to introduce a social tariff. Water companies are best placed to take decisions on the design of social tariffs as part of their charges schemes, in consultation with their customers. Social tariffs are funded by cross-subsidy between customers, so it is vital that they take account of local circumstances and the views of local people. Most water companies will have a social tariff in place by 2015-16.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer but I draw his attention to the fact that a cost of living crisis is affecting about 2 million households in England and Wales who are classed as living in water poverty, which means they are paying at least 3% of their household income in water bills. Will the Government think again and consider supporting Labour’s proposals to introduce a reduced social tariff to help families who are struggling to pay their water bills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

6. How many cattle were slaughtered as a result of bovine TB in 2013.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Between January and September 2013, 24,618 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts in Great Britain. That is an average of more than 90 cattle a day. In Staffordshire over the same period, 2,245 cattle were slaughtered for TB control purposes.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Each one of those instances is a tragedy. Farmers in Burton, Uttoxeter and across the country are having their lifetime’s work destroyed by this disease. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the Opposition seem to criticise constantly the work to tackle this disease, while having no plans of their own and offering no support to my farmers?

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments, particularly as my constituency is so close to his. Having got this disease down to 0.01% in 1972 when we had a bipartisan approach—in those days, there was absolute unity on the need to bear down on the disease in cattle and in wildlife—it is tragic that we let that go. Since then, 305,000 perfectly healthy cattle have been hauled off to slaughter at a cost of £500 million. If we do not get a grip on this, as my hon. Friend says, we are heading for a bill of £1 billion. We just wish that we could get back to that bipartisan approach, which has been endorsed by every other country I cited in my previous answer.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

TB is causing chaos in the county of Monmouthshire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a completely open-minded and united approach? If culling works, then all sides of the House should support it. If it does not work, after we have seen the independent survey, we should unite in supporting an alternative.

[Mr Paterson]

I have to respect the rules of devolution and the Welsh Government are pursuing a vaccination policy. Our belief is that vaccination is, sadly, expensive and pointless on diseased animals. There is an interesting role for ring vaccination once the pool of disease has been reduced, and I think we can probably learn from both areas.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to propose changes to the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency following the Elliott review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

This is an interim report which Professor Elliott plans to discuss further with interested parties in the coming months. The Government are interested in hearing the views of others, as we consider all of Professor Elliott’s interim recommendations, before responding to his final report in the spring.

[Mrs Glindon]

Given the emphasis on criminality in the food chain in the Elliott review, what are the Government doing to ensure that unscrupulous people who deliberately defraud the public will be brought to justice?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I can tell her that investigations continue at a number of sites across the UK. The City of London police are the co-ordinating police force for all of those investigations and five arrests have been made. The Food Standards Agency continues to liaise with the City of London police and, through them, is sharing information on UK investigations with Europol.

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

8. What assessment he has made of how easy it is to access and use food banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

9. Whether his Department has any plans to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the 2010 environmental permitting regulations.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

There are no current proposals to alter the enforcement provisions of the 2010 environmental permitting regulations. The 2010 regulations and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 together provide a range of enforcement powers at regulated and illegal sites. I would consider the case for strengthening these or other regulatory provisions if there is evidence that exercising them is proving insufficient in preventing harm to health and the environment.

[Robert Neill]

If the Minister wants evidence, would he like to look at the waste-for-fuel site in my constituency, which has so far had 15 fires in the past two years, at a cost of £568,000 to the fire service and 1,900 hours of firefighters’ time—more than the clear-up cost of removing this rogue operator—and where repeated attempts by the Environment Agency to secure an injunction have so far failed? Will he press the agency to honour its commitment to give my constituents the results of toxicity testing on that site?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

11. What reports he has received on the recent floods in northern Lincolnshire; and what discussions he has had with the Environment Agency on its plans to improve flood defences.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency on 7 December and saw some of the damage caused. The flooding caused an estimated £40 million-worth of damages to Immingham docks. The Environment Agency is currently updating its Humber flood risk management strategy, which looks at long-term justification, funding and solutions for the management of flood-risk communities along the Humber. Data and learning from recent flooding will also be used in the development of the strategy.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I draw his particular attention to the village of Barrow Haven, between Barton and Immingham, which has twice suffered floods in the past six years. It is unacceptable that the local community should have to live in constant fear of a repeat. I urge my right hon. Friend, as part of his review to look at involving more local people in the task of how best to alleviate floods. People who serve on drainage boards and the like want to be able to input their local knowledge.

[Mr Paterson]

I enjoyed the visit with my hon. Friend. It was astonishing to see that that was a one-in-500-years incident. I totally endorse his view that there should be involvement of local people. I am happy for him to write to me, and we can negotiate with the Environment Agency. I strongly urge him to get his local councils involved so that they can participate in our partnership regime.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

DEFRA’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health. As the country continues to experience significant flooding, I would like to thank the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities and public utilities for their tireless work in seeking to safeguard both life and property. Despite those valiant efforts, eight people have lost their lives as a result of the severe weather conditions over the Christmas and new year period. I know the House will want to join me in extending our deepest sympathies to their families and friends. With water levels still rising in many areas, I ask the public to continue to take heed of the Environment Agency’s warnings. We must remain vigilant. I shall chair a further Cobra meeting this afternoon.

[Lyn Brown]

Children growing up near busy roads in West Ham are, because of the quality of air that they breathe, likely to enter adulthood with smaller lungs. Now that the Secretary of State has abandoned proposals to reduce air quality monitoring—a decision roundly condemned by professionals—will he explain what action he is going to take to deal with this growing public health crisis?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important question about what is a real and growing problem in certain conurbations. In fairness, however, it is exactly the opposite of what she says, as we are consulting on how to bring in more effective regimes. She has raised a key question that affects large numbers of people.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T2. Following the new year celebrations, farmers in my constituency have voiced their concerns about the dangers of Chinese lanterns not only to the welfare of their livestock, but to property and, ultimately, their livelihoods. Following bans in Germany, Spain, Australia and much of south America, is it not time to consider banning these flying death-traps?

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

T6. Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that he strongly suspected that the recent abnormal weather events had been a result of climate change. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister?

[Mr Paterson]

What the Prime Minister said was that we should consider the practical measures that we are taking, and I entirely endorse his remarks. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask those on his party’s Front Bench whether they will now endorse our very ambitious spending plans for flood defences, which they have so far been very reluctant to do.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

T5. Will the Minister confirm that his Department intends to exempt small and medium-sized businesses from its proposed tax on plastic carrier bags? Given that biodegradable plastic in the waste stream is a contaminant and will reduce the number of plastic bags being recycled, will he withdraw that exemption?

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T7. Will the Secretary of State clarify his earlier statement about an increase in his Department’s funding for flood protection? During the second half of last year, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who was then a DEFRA Minister, told me in a written parliamentary answer that in the year in which his party came to power, the Department spent £646 million. Spending in the current year is £113 million less, at £533 million. Did the Secretary of State’s earlier statement mean that the Government have now increased funding for flood protection in this and future years, and does that mean that he can now abandon the proposals to cut 1,700 jobs at the Environment Agency?

[Mr Paterson]

I know that those in the Labour Whips Office struggle with slow learners, but I shall put it on the record again: this Government are providing more than any previous Government in the current spending review. We are spending £2.3 billion, which is in addition to £148 million of partnership money. Exceptionally, the present Government have a £2.3 billion programme of capital spending up to 2021. Will Labour Members please ask those on their Front Bench to endorse that spending programme?

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

In parts of rural Hampshire, the cost of high-speed broadband runs to many thousands of pounds per connection. Can my hon. Friend reassure those living in villages such as Barton Stacey that resources from, for instance, the rural community broadband fund might provide them with high-speed connections?

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

T8. Will the Secretary of State clarify how the remarks he made on allowing ancient woodland to be lost to development meet the spirit of his Department’s forestry policy statement which states categorically:“Protection of our trees, woods and forests, especially our ancient woodland, is our top priority”?

[Mr Paterson]

I am absolutely delighted to be able to reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) that the idea that biodiversity offsetting could be used as a means of imposing unwanted houses on ancient woodland is an absolute travesty. It is absolutely clear: all along we have always said that should we bring in offsetting—I made this clear to the all-party group—all the current protections of the planning regime and all the mitigation hierarchy remain. Only at the very last moment could offsetting be considered, and we have always said that some assets will be too precious to offset and—[Interruption.] Exactly, and that might well be ancient woodland.

The hon. Lady should look at examples of offsetting in countries like Australia, where there has been an 80% shift of planning applications away from fragile environments. Used properly, therefore, biodiversity offsetting could be a tremendous tool to protect those ancient woodlands which she and I value. As someone who has planted an arboretum over recent years, the idea that I am going to trash ancient woodlands is an absolute outrage to me personally.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Following the damage caused by the tidal surges in the Kent estuary on more than one occasion last week, will the Minister confirm that draft flood defence schemes along the whole of the River Kent will now be prioritised?

Woodland Planting

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Today I am announcing that I intend to maintain levels of woodland planting that we fund in England through pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy, rural development, in 2014-15.

Following negotiation of the EU rules governing the transition from the old to the new common agriculture policy and clarification from the European Commission of their impact, we can now approve new applications for tree planting grants in 2014.

We will therefore continue processing existing applications for woodland planting grants made by 31 December 2013. If this fails to deliver a level of funded planting in line with the overall annual rate under the existing rural development programme we will look at inviting further applications later in 2014 before the new programme comes into effect.

We also intend as part of the new rural development programme to offer tree-planting grants in 2015 in advance of new environmental land management agreements coming into effect in January 2016. We will work with interested parties on what this could involve before we submit the programme to the Commission for approval.

The total Government investment in creating and managing woodland under the rural development programme in 2014-15 will amount to £30 million. This consists of £6 million on new planting and £24 million on woodland management, including maintaining more recent woodland planting. This will fund the creation of 2,000 hectares of woodland, equivalent to about 4 million trees, and the protection or improvement of 200,000 hectares of existing woodland. It will help with extending woodland cover to 12% of the country by 2060.

I remain committed to protecting, improving and expanding England’s woodland assets as set out in the Government forestry and woodlands policy statement of January 2013.