Fishing Industry

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which was a Government debate and is now a Backbench Business debate. I join other Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). The second election campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby in May 1979 was my first election campaign as a party worker.

I take this opportunity to add my tribute to the bravery of our fishermen and those who have lost their lives in an incredibly difficult and dangerous line of work, as numerous Members have said today. The men who work out at sea take huge risks, and too many of them and their families pay the ultimate price.

We all appreciate just how important the fishing industry is to our country, but it is especially important to many of our coastal towns, so let me be clear. We in the Labour party believe that developing and maintaining sustainable fish stocks is not just essential for the marine environment, but is vital for the long-term health of our fishing industry. Labour believes that fishing is a public good which should be treated as such. That means that the Government have an important role in protecting the sustainability of both our fishing industry and the marine environment. We cannot divorce the economy from the environment and nowhere is that clearer than with fishing. Let me demonstrate the point: show me a series of declining fish stocks, and I will show you a declining coastal town.

I grew up in Grimsby, as many people in this Chamber know. As a girl, I witnessed a bustling fishing port—the biggest in the world at that time—and I clearly remember being taken down to the dockside by my father. I remember the numerous trawlers, the sense of busyness, the sense of pride of workers doing something they knew was incredibly important. But I remember, too, the decline as the years of plenty were replaced by years of what looked like famine. The devastation that it wreaked, both economically and socially, was vivid, with areas around the docks, such as East Marsh, suffering disastrous consequences. To this day, East Marsh, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby knows, is one of the most deprived wards in the country. Gone with the fish are many of the food processing plants that lined Ladysmith road when I was young. Findus has gone. Birds Eye has gone, no longer anchored by the town’s status as one of the greatest food towns in Europe.

As the daughter of a former Grimsby fisherman and someone who grew up in a coastal area, therefore, I fully realise the economic importance of activities related to the sea, fishing being a key aspect of all that. I absolutely believe that we need to learn our lessons. We need to understand that sustainable stocks go hand in hand with sustainable fishing and sustainable coastal communities.

The British fishing fleet is now much diminished, but it is still an important source of economic activity and contributes many millions to the UK economy. In 2013, it still directly employed some 12,000 people with a fleet of 6,400 vessels, and it landed some 600,000 tonnes of fish, at a value of more than £700 million. Plymouth, for example, is one of the largest fishing ports in the country—Brixham being the biggest— landing annually some 11.6 million tonnes of fish worth in excess of £13.5 million. It is not enough to reiterate the facts and figures. We need to secure our fishing industry by ensuring its sustainability, and we need to do that by respecting the fact that our fishing stocks are not just there to be plundered without any regard for their long-term survival. We need a plan to deliver both environmental and commercial fishing success.

Of course, the most important tool at our disposal in developing and maintaining sustainable stocks is science—good, credible data that is rigorously collected and rigorously analysed to underpin good decision making. Without good science, it will be very difficult to achieve our goal of securing a long-term fishing industry that is sustainable both economically and environmentally, and an industry that can continue to support our vital coastal communities. So my first question to the Minister today is: how confident is he that the UK can contribute robust scientific data to the European debate about sustainable fishing stocks? Will the Minister inform the House about the impact of Government cuts on the resources available to develop a more robust scientific base to fisheries policy?

If science is key to securing sustainability, we must also fully understand the importance of strengthening the contribution made to the industry by low-impact fishing practices, which are good not only for the environment but for the long-term interests of our industry. As was evidenced in the debate about sea bass last week, we know that our hard-pressed coastal communities secure significant economic benefit from fishing practices that are also less damaging to the environment. As I pointed out, some 884,000 sea anglers in England directly contribute some £1.23 billion to the UK economy. Their activities support a £2.1 billion contribution to the UK economy and 23,600 jobs, so we need to ensure that our plan, working in concert with our EU colleagues, takes account of the need to deliver more low impact fishing practices, and that is the proper context for any debate about quota distribution.

What then, is the Government’s approach to this issue? How prepared are the Government to incentivise the industry to make the switch to more sustainable practices? How hard are the Government prepared to argue in Europe for the conservation measures necessary to deliver sustainable stocks, particularly in relation to action to protect those all-important nursery areas and the spawning areas? How prepared are the Government to use Labour’s Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and the marine conservation zones enabled by that legislation, to help to deliver industrial and environmental sustainability? Labour is proud of its record on marine protection. Our Act offers a positive way forward, as it makes possible conservation measures, not just in relation to the nought to 6-mile limit but in relation to the 6 to 12-mile limit, because of course it gives the Marine Management Organisation the power to deliver new byelaws that relate not just to UK fishing vessels but to the vessels of all member states that have fishing rights in our waters.

Labour is not just proud of its record; we are clear about our support for continued membership of the EU and the need for positive engagement with it. This is particularly important to fishing. The EU represents the world’s largest maritime territory and is key to delivering a sustainable future. Rather than turning our back on it, as some hon. Members would have us do, we need to be taking our arguments into Europe, making the case for meaningful implementation of fisheries reform, in order to deliver thriving fish stocks and thriving fishing communities. Is the Minister committed to meaningful engagement with our partners in the EU or would he take the route suggested by some of his colleagues and prefer to shout from the sidelines? Reform of the common fisheries policy must bring with it a determination to deliver on the key changes, which as we all know are primarily focused on more regionalisation of decision making, a requirement for quotas based on maximum sustainable yield by 2015 and a ban on discards.

Maximum sustainable yields, as has been illustrated in the debate today, are a key tool for delivering a sustainable fishing future. They offer a way forward both in terms of recovering over-exploited stocks and securing their long-term future. However, it is also right that maximum sustainable yields be based on good science and good quality data, and that these data be correctly applied in the decision making process. This means adopting an approach that is rigorous but pragmatic; 2015 should be the assumed date for implementation of maximum sustainable yields, but we need to recognise that where the case is made scientifically for extending the time available to reach maximum sustainable yields, we should do so.

Fishermen and environmentalists alike are keenly interested in this aspect of CFP and they deserve to know where the Government have got to in terms of implementation. So, will the Minister update the House on how he plans to approach the implementation of maximum sustainable yields? Transparency is the key. Where the 2015 deadline is supported by the Government, give us the evidence for the decision. Where flexibility on maximum sustainable yields is supported by the Government, again, give us the supporting evidence. Our hard-pressed fishing communities and those who are passionate about our marine environment deserve nothing less.

Finally, there is the issue of discards. We know that the deadlines for implementation vary from 2015 for pelagic fisheries to 2016 to 2019 for demersal fisheries. We know that we need to deliver on this principle if we are to make real progress towards a sustainable fishing future, albeit we have had the demand and the argument made today for a more pragmatic approach to implementation. But we know too that, badly implemented, we run the risk of seeing quotas increased for those vessels that practise or have practised discarding, while those vessels that fish more selectively and hence more sustainably risk having their quotas cut in order to achieve maximum sustainable yields. Is the Minister prepared to argue for measures designed to avoid this undesirable and perverse consequence? Is he prepared to make the case for the adoption of more selective fishing practices by those vessels benefiting from quota uplift? In other words, is he determined to ensure that we do not sacrifice the principle of sustainability in an attempt to compensate those who have traditionally indulged in discarding? What will he do to ensure that the integrity of the ban is maintained?

We believe that the interests of the marine environment go hand in hand with the best interests of the fishing industry and of our hard-pressed coastal communities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) pointed out, we need to develop stronger partnerships with the fishing industry to shape the transition to that more sustainable future. More than anything, we need to be able to use good scientific data to underpin our approach to delivering that future. I await the Minister’s responses to the questions raised with interest and once again thank the sponsoring Members for today’s debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

We have a strong regulatory system that looks at not just the value for money and investment that companies offer customers, but the transparency of their business models and how they operate. Yorkshire Water, for example, has a good debt management programme to help people who have in the past struggled to pay their bills. We are making progress on a whole range of issues, and I welcome the fact that companies are upping their game.

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

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) pointed out, rising water bills are adding to the cost of living crisis. With one in five customers struggling to pay, but only six water companies currently offering support to little more than 25,000 customers, will the Minister acknowledge that he needs to get to grips with this problem by adopting Labour’s national affordability scheme to end the current postcode lottery to which my hon. Friend referred, and to ensure that hard-pressed consumers get the support they need wherever they live?

[Dan Rogerson]

Since last year, water companies have been able to introduce schemes and they are doing so, but it is important that they take their customers with them and look at what works in their area. The schemes are not funded on a national basis. As I understand it, the Labour party’s proposal would not be funded on a national basis either, but in water company areas. It is important to look at the situation in each area.

UK Sea Bass Stocks

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) on securing the debate. We always say that debates are important, but this one really is; and it is very timely, given the meeting of the Council of the European Union in two week’s time.

The hon. Gentleman outlined perfectly the problems with sea bass stock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—both ex-Fisheries Ministers —made the important point that if we do not take tough decisions now we will be back in two years facing an even worse crisis in stock levels. That is an important backdrop to today’s debate.

I want to underline one of the debate’s key themes, and in doing so I must declare not quite an interest, but where I come from—literally. I am the daughter of a former commercial fisherman—a Grimsby fisherman. Grimsby was the biggest fishing port in the world at one point. He fished in the Arctic, which was probably the most difficult fishing ground to work in during the 1950s. I grew up in a village outside the town and fully realise the pride and feeling that coastal people have in their fishermen, which continues to this day. In my father’s youth it was common for the school day to start with the fisherman’s prayer because yet another tragedy had occurred at sea. It is important to remember that fishing was and still is the most dangerous occupation in the world.

Fishing is still an important source of economic activity, contributing many millions to the UK economy. In 2013, the commercial industry directly employed about 12,000 people, with a fleet of around 6,400 vessels, landing around 600,000 tonnes of fish at a value of over £700 million. Let us not forget, however—and I do not think that we can, after today’s debate—how important angling is, socially and economically. I am not going to rehearse the figures again—they have been reiterated more than once today—but to summarise, both directly and indirectly, angling contributes £1.2 billion and 23,600 jobs to the UK economy.

Fishing and angling matter, and sea bass is an important and iconic fish for those engaged in both commercial and recreational fishing. The latest figures suggest that across Europe some 5,600 tonnes of sea bass are landed annually, with the commercial side accounting for just over 4,000 tonnes, around 75% of the total, and recreational fishing accounting for the rest—around 25%. A breakdown of landings by EU state shows that French vessels are by far the biggest exploiters of the stock, accounting for around 66%; by contrast, UK vessels land around 20% of the total, with the Dutch and the Belgians landing the majority of the rest.

The fish itself—this next point is important when we are discussing sustainability—is a slow-growing one, and does not mature until four to seven years of age. Juveniles spend up to three years occupying nursery areas in estuaries and tend not to leave until they are around 36 cm in length.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has advised that sea bass mortality is at a level well above that considered sustainable for the stock. As we all know, ICES has recommended that catches should be cut immediately by 80%, to restore stock levels. Furthermore, recruitment of young fish into the population has been in decline since the mid-2000s, and has been very poor since 2008. The decline in recruitment coupled with the increase in mortality has caused a rapid deterioration in stock levels. Another important point to bear in mind is that the species is completely unprotected by quotas.

It is against that backdrop that some EU countries have taken action to avoid a disastrous collapse of the stock in their waters. We have heard today what the Irish have done, with a complete ban on commercial bass fishing by Irish-registered vessels within Ireland’s 12-mile territorial limit. The Dutch Government are considering the introduction of a series of national measures, including the banning of pair trawling in certain areas from September to December, capping monthly landings, increasing the minimum landing size from 36 cm to 42 cm, setting a bag limit for recreational anglers and putting a cap on the small-scale commercial rod and line fleet.

The EU position is fluid, and is up for discussion and decision in two weeks’ time. It proposes that anglers be restricted to bagging one fish per person, per day, while commercial vessels would face some restrictions on catch—it is all very fluid—based on the assessment of the need for an immediate 80% reduction in catch and the reductions on stock exploitation required to keep the species sustainable.

As has been mentioned frequently, in the UK we recognised the need to protect sea bass stock—that history and the need to learn lessons from it have been well rehearsed today—with the plan in 2007 to raise the minimum landing size to 40 cm, and then again to 45 cm. In 2012, the then Fisheries Ministers, the hon. Member for Newbury, launched a review of the evidence supporting those measures, but to this day we have not seen its outcome. Will the Minister comment on where it has got to?

In the past few years, the UK Government—both the previous Government and the current one—have seemed unwilling to take action in UK waters to restore stock levels, arguing that they do not want to exceed or fall short of either the requirements set by the EU or, now, those of their own better regulation framework. However, I note from a recent letter sent by the Minister to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) that although he believes that important progress can be made at the EU Council in two weeks’ time, he is of a mind to press for a more radical set of proposals from the Commission negotiations, with a focus on a balanced package of measures to reduce catches in the commercial sector, coupled with sensible measures for the recreational sector.

I wish to make it clear to the Minister that we support an approach that calls for stronger interim measures. The UK position in those negotiations needs to be firm and resolute. We need a better set of proposals from the EU than the one currently on the table. Although it is possible for member states to develop measures unilaterally, the impact of such measures is weakened by the grandfather rights on access to home waters that are enjoyed by some member states. That is why we need agreement at EU level. The ideal outcome would be a set of measures that all member states have to abide by, including short-term measures to halt the alarming decline in stocks while further research is undertaken and a long-term management plan is developed.

What do we do if we do not get agreement at the EU Council in two weeks’ time? The Opposition acknowledge the potential anomaly if we take unilateral action, but the UK Government would have to do something in the event of failure to find agreement at the EU Council. A number of measures have been proposed both today and in the recent past, including an increased minimum landing size. On that issue, I return to the review promised by one of the Minister’s predecessors and reiterate that we would be glad to hear both its findings and his view.

We all recognise that simply increasing the minimum landing size is not a complete answer. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has stated that it has serious concerns about the recruitment of fish into the sea bass population, which has been in decline for a long time. The debate about whether to extend the protection of sea bass nursery areas goes on and on. Will the Minister explain his plans to tackle that problem? We need resolution on that issue sooner rather than later—much sooner, in fact.

Has the Minister considered incentives to encourage commercial rod and line fishing, especially within the 6-mile limit, as an alternative to more damaging commercial fishing practices? Hon. Members have mentioned other measures such as catch limits and spatial closures. We need a response from him on those as well.

Finally, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 set out the Government’s intention to create an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. One of the main aims of that network is conservation of the sea environment. Will the Minister explain his view on how that policy interacts with issues such as the one we are discussing, especially when one considers that around a third of commercial catches are based on demersal trawling, a type of fishing said to be extremely damaging to the sea environment?

The 2009 Act gives the Marine Management Organisation the powers to introduce byelaws in our protected areas in the 6-mile to 12-mile coastal limit. Those byelaws apply to the vessels of all EU member states, not just to the home fleet. That could be a valuable way to extend some of the protections we want to see. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the potential use of marine conservation zones and the powers available to the MMO to deal with some of the problems we are facing.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on this critical issue. More than anything else, we want and need a European deal. We also want to see positive and constructive engagement with the EU, not just shouting from the sidelines. We hope he will commit to that and to outlining, in addition, any measures that the UK can apply successfully and fairly in the event of a decision failing to materialise at EU level.

Control of Horses: Instruction

Angela Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I join the Minister in congratulating the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on bringing forward the Bill. The Opposition support this motion. I will not repeat the points that we made on Second Reading about why we are where we are, because we just have to deal with the situation as it is. We are pleased to see the Government correcting their position by including private land in the Bill’s provisions and in the title of the Bill.

We are committed to seeing this Bill go through the legislative process as quickly as possible. In fact, the sooner we can get it on the statute book the better, because it is about not just the welfare standards of horses but the significant resource being absorbed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by local authorities in dealing with the issue.

Dairy Industry

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) for securing this important and thoughtful debate. I begin by conveying an apology from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) who is currently on a shadow ministerial visit to Brussels, where he is discussing several topics, including the ongoing dairy crisis, with European counterparts. I assure Members that we take such matters very seriously and consider them to be of the greatest importance.

As has been made clear this afternoon, the recent situation in the dairy industry is extremely worrying for rural communities, tourism and the availability of local food. Britain has a long tradition of dairy farming, which is the country’s largest agricultural sector. The UK is Europe’s third largest producer of milk after Germany and France, and the industry employs more than 50,000 people and contributes £3.7 billion to the British economy. For that reason, the Government must respond to the current dairy crisis by co-ordinating action by European officials to support dairy farmers and restore confidence in the industry.

We need stability in the industry, but consecutive months of high domestic milk production, combined with the ban on dairy imports to Russia and falling returns from global commodity markets, have resulted in an overall fall in milk prices because the largest UK milk processors have reduced payments to farmers for raw liquid milk. Low global dairy commodity prices have been compounded by price wars between major retail outlets, which have used milk as a loss leader to attract customers. Several hon. Members have made that point.

Farmers for Action states that some farmers are selling milk for as little as 25p a litre, which is far below the market price. That results in farmers operating at a loss and not even covering production costs. Not only is that financially unsustainable, but it raises further questions about responsibility in our food supply chain. If the illusion is created that food is cheap, it may damage the agricultural industry and affect how the public view food. That is not at all helpful to achieving our aims. The Government must address long-standing structural imbalances of low profitability in the industry. Farm incomes are still falling, and many farmers have left the industry altogether. We currently have just over 10,000 dairy farmers in England and Wales, and that figure is down 4.1% on the previous year.

Although the dairy industry is not yet self-sufficient, we do not believe that its future is bleak. Population growth, increased wealth in developing nations and changes in dietary habits all point to greater long-term demand for dairy. The Government must ensure that the UK dairy industry is well placed to take advantage.

[Glyn Davies]

If there had not been such demand today and I had been able to make a speech, I would have liked to make the point that quotas come to an end next year. European countries will expand dramatically to take over the growing market that the shadow Minister is talking about. We need an assurance from the Minister that the instruments in Brussels will not be used to enable other countries to expand their industry at the expense of the British dairy industry.

[Angela Smith]

That is clearly for the Minister to answer. I made the point earlier that we need to see effective, co-ordinated action from the UK Government in its relationship with Brussels to ensure that the UK dairy industry is properly served.

In June, the industry pulled together and launched a plan called “Leading the Way”, which states that an estimated 2.5% annual growth in global demand for dairy products over the next 10 years will boost UK dairy production through increased exports and import substitution. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a point about marketing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about localism and the need to ensure that people properly understand that cheeses such as mozzarella are sometimes made in Wales. That is an important point, and a lot can be done on that score. In particular, more can be done to encourage British people to eat British cheese. My own favourite is Wensleydale, the great Yorkshire cheese that is produced in Hull.

[Roger Williams]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Smith]

I will not give way, because I need to give the Minister time to respond. “Leading the Way” is an important vision for profitable growth for the UK dairy industry, based on economic, social and environmental sustainability. It focuses on the capacity of the dairy sector and the need for it to be competitive in a global context through scale, innovation and efficiency. What are the Government doing to support the industry at every level, and to improve the industry’s international competitiveness?

The industry’s voluntary code of best practice is another encouraging sign that the sector is addressing some of the structural issues of pricing mechanisms and transparency that need to be resolved. As several hon. Members have said, the dairy code provides a useful voluntary model to ensure that producers get a fair deal, and it avoids inflexible legislation and price fixing. However, it must be made to work and it must be rolled out across the dairy sector. Labour supports and encourages the dairy industry’s voluntary code of practice, which has been drawn up by Dairy UK and the NFU, and we believe that it should be adopted by the entire industry. It is absolutely right that milk producers should get improved bargaining power.

We should all welcome transparent contracts between producers and purchasers that set clear prices, which will add much-needed security. That is why the findings of the UK’s independent review of the voluntary code, which was undertaken by Alex Fergusson and recommended that the code be extended up through the supply chain, were encouraging. I commend the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for launching an inquiry into the matter, which is helpful and appropriate.

The hon. Lady recently wrote to the Secretary of State to seek the Government’s views on the potential for the statutory framework provided by the groceries code adjudicator to be extended to help to alleviate the current problems in the dairy industry. Labour, of course, supports the adjudicator, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was very much involved in getting the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 through the House. The adjudicator’s remit under the 2013 Act does not extend to the relationship between indirect suppliers, such as farmers, and retailers, nor does it apply to price setting. Labour would be open to exploring whether the adjudicator’s role should be extended to include the relationship between milk producers and milk processors.

To tackle the current crisis, we must take important steps domestically and at European level. We believe that retailers, processors and manufactures must work with dairy farmers to ensure a fair return for their product. They must recognise the cost of production and ensure investment and long-term viability.

What are the Government doing to address the structural imbalances that result in low farm-gate prices? What meetings has the Minister had with European colleagues to ensure that British farmers get a fairer price for the milk they produce? What additional EU measures will be taken to ensure the viability of the UK dairy sector? That point was made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) in his intervention. Finally, what are the Government doing to take more proactive steps to promote investment in processing and reduce farmers’ production costs, including support for innovative research and development? Dairy farming plays an integral part in our rural economy, as it has for centuries. The Government must support the sector to overcome the short-term crisis and secure the long-term sustainability of the industry.

Control of Horses Bill

Angela Smith Excerpts

Friday 24th October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for bringing forward this important private Member’s Bill. His comments demonstrated a clear understanding of the issues relating to fly-grazing, such as the impact on horse welfare, the burden that this illegal habit places on local authorities and why it has been increasing in recent years. He has a long history of campaigning on the issue and, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) pointed out, he has worked hard to secure Government support for the measures being debated today. He underlined the cross-party support for the Bill, which I will talk more about later.

I also thank the other Members who have spoken, the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who both highlighted the problem in their constituencies. I also want to put on the record our thanks to the organisations that have campaigned long and hard to get this issue on the national political agenda, including the RSPCA, Blue Cross, World Horse Welfare, HorseWorld, the British Horse Society and Redwings. They all came together recently to produce a damning report entitled “Left on the Verge: In the grip of a horse crisis in England and Wales”, which the hon. Member for York Outer referred to. It catalogues the appalling neglect and animal welfare abuse all over the country, including in his constituency.

In short, this problem affects all parts of the UK—I want to emphasize that point—and it is growing. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North rightly indicated the extent of the problem in her area, in Hampshire, and, in particular, in Surrey. The hon. Member for York Outer also pointed out that it is a big issue in north Yorkshire and in places such as Doncaster. Although Doncaster is governed at local level by a metropolitan local authority, it does not have the significant resources required to deal with such problems. We should not be using local authority money to deal with these illegal activities. We need to deal with the problem, which affects the whole UK.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough also referred to “Stop the Scourge”, the booklet recently produced to indicate the depth and scale of the problem and what needs to be done. What is pleasing about that report is that the RSPCA and the Countryside Alliance are on the same page—something we do not often see. That indicates the strength of feeling on this issue across the country, and the strength of the consensus about how to deal with it.

It is important to point out that there are many good horse and pony owners, including many in the Traveller community, for whom responsible horse ownership and trading is an integral part of their way of life and culture. However, there is also a minority of people who, for many reasons, are not responsible. Those people do not care about animal welfare and frequently put horses at risk, never minding the damage and dangers that they create for others with their irresponsible actions. The incident on the A64 highlighted those dangers perfectly.

Illegal fly-grazing is a complex issue with many aspects. The dumping of horses is often a consequence of over-breeding and the drop in the value of horses. There is a lack of passporting and micro-chipping to enable easy identification of horse ownership, as has been clearly illustrated by all the examples that have been laid before us. It is to do with the complexity of outdated legislation, which allows unscrupulous owners, at great taxpayer expense, to dance around the authorities and enforcement regimes. It is also about criminality.

Labour Members believe that this issue needs urgent attention, and we therefore support the Bill and hope that it makes good progress. That is not to say that we are completely happy with it, or that it will not benefit from improvement in Committee, as the hon. Member for York Outer acknowledged. We believe, like him, that it could be improved in some areas.

Before I move on to our concerns about the Bill in its current form, I would like to comment briefly on the lack of action by the Government. In contrast to Labour in Wales, which has grappled with this issue and already brought forward legislation to deal with it, Ministers in this place have dithered and done nothing while the problem grows. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) recently stated, the Government could have introduced amendments to existing legislation, such as the Animals Act 1971, to improve the situation, but they have chosen not to act.

Alternatively, Ministers could have brought forward a simple Bill, as did the Welsh Government, that would have given local authorities and other agencies the powers they are asking for to deal with this issue—powers relating to proof of ownership, to removal, and to the ability to dispose of animals removed in such a way. Instead, we have seen nothing, and now, perversely we see the problem growing in England after Wales has acted. In short, parts of England are being seen as the softer option, and Wales’s problem is being exported to add to the existing problems that we have in England.

We do absolutely welcome the Bill. However, one major difference between this Bill and the legislation introduced by the Welsh Assembly is that it covers only public land, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. That, in our view, is a major weakness. Without the inclusion of private land, enforcement would be difficult, if not impossible in many cases, and that is unacceptable. For the Bill to be effective, all types of tenure of land need to be included. We believe that private land needs to be added to its provisions, and we would support its strengthening accordingly. I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the use of an instruction by way of a motion for the House to consider. We will support any motion of that kind in order to get the Bill into the right form. I hope that the Minister will say the same, and that we can all continue to work together on this on a cross-party basis.

The RSPCA has seen a 20% rise in calls relating to tethered horses, and over the past few years there has been a huge rise in incidents of fly-grazing reported to local authorities. The impact, therefore, is not just on local authorities, whether they are large or small and whatever their resources, but on big charities such as the RSPCA, which is feeling the pressure because it has to deal with the issue.

Our outdated and ill-fitting legislation and enforcement powers are allowing criminals to pirouette through their responsibilities and evade justice while horses suffer and landowners, whether they are public or private, find themselves enmeshed in a cruel and unnecessary tragic farce.

We wish the Bill well as it passes through its perilous parliamentary journey, which could be made much easier with Government backing. There is every indication that they do back it, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and hope we can get the Bill through the House and the legislative process. We will continue to offer our support, so long as the Bill deals with the issue in its entirety. However, let me make one thing clear: if this Bill fails to make it to the statute book or, indeed, if it remains too weak to be able to tackle this most serious of issues, we will legislate to stop this practice, if we form the next Government.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate about the sale of puppies and kittens and the related issues of puppy farming and so on. Before I make my contribution, however, may I, like every other speaker, pay tribute to the Pup Aid campaign and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who has led the way in Parliament on this issue and has clearly illustrated today the problems we face in relation to the trade in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens?

As most colleagues have done today, I also pay tribute to Marc Abraham, the television vet, who has been tireless in his campaigning. I have worked with him closely over the past two years or so and can confirm that he has made a great contribution to this debate. It is impossible to be anything other than impressed by his commitment to the cause of animal welfare. Pup Aid has run a successful campaign, with over 100,000 signatures secured for its e-petition—hence the debate today. This itself is a testimony to the success of the campaign and the importance of the issues it raises, as is the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. We have learned a great deal about colleagues’ opinions—and about their pets as well.

The Government’s record on the issue is disappointing, but I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to correct that situation and do as the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) suggested and give us some positive movement. Puppy farming is widely perceived to be more and more of a problem, while the importation of puppies has increased massively in recent years. For example, in 2012 the importation of dogs from Hungary increased on the previous year by more than 450%, and from Romania by more than 1,150%. Coupled with these rises, the number of online sales of puppies and kittens has increased significantly, which must be a major concern to anybody who thinks that animal welfare is important, yet we have seen little response from the Government to this wide range of issues, which includes, of course, the sale of puppies and kittens in retail outlets.

It is worse than that, however, because the Government have also failed properly to get to grips with wider dog welfare issues relating to dog control and responsible ownership. And although measures such as the prosecution of owners whose dogs attack on private property are welcome—indeed, we pressed for them—it has to be said that the Government dragged their feet and took far too long to get these measures on the statute book.

If we are to respond effectively to problems with the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens, we need to take a comprehensive approach, because the challenges raised by the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of concerns about animal welfare standards. As I have made clear, we need to look not just at the issue in the motion, but more broadly at breeding practices, the growing trade in online sales and issues arising out of the misuse of the pet travel scheme—PETS—by commercial puppy breeding interests.

We are committed to doing just that and to working with animal welfare organisations and other stakeholders to review the trade in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said. The Animal Welfare Act 2006, introduced by the last Labour Government, sets a useful benchmark for such a review, and Labour remains proud of what it achieved with this legislation. Importantly, for the first time it embedded in statute clear standards relating to the welfare of domestic animals. The five tests set out in the Act are now taken as a practical template for animal welfare assessment, and we will use this legislation as the starting point for our review.

Today’s debate has given a necessary airing to the growing problem of the irresponsible breeding and sale of puppies and kittens, and many Members have made excellent contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) talked about problems with the importation of commercially bred dogs under PETS, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who also talked about the relationship between the puppy and the mother and the need for the mother to be present at the point of sale. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) talked about the emotional needs of puppies and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) talked about the measures being taken by the Welsh Assembly. We look forward to hearing more about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) talked about the trade in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens and the need for the highest welfare standards.

I want to conclude my remarks by paying tribute to the wider animal welfare movement, which has worked tirelessly to highlight the issues raised today, and indeed has attempted in some instances to establish creative responses to them. The RSPCA, for instance, has campaigned vigorously to draw attention to the abuse of the pets travel scheme, and has also worked hard to establish the case for a review of the current status of the standards applying to the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens. The Dogs Trust has led the way with its campaign for compulsory microchipping, and has played a key role within the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to establish new, higher standards for adverts on websites. May I also take this opportunity to mark, on the record, the outstanding contribution to dog welfare made by Clarissa Baldwin, the outgoing and long-serving—very long-serving—chief executive of the Dogs Trust?

Finally, I pay tribute to the Kennel Club, which 10 years ago developed an assured breeder scheme that now has 8,000 members. The case for a comprehensive review of standards in the breeding and sale of puppies and kittens is clear—it must be a review that will have at its heart the welfare of these animals. They deserve nothing less, and as a society that prides itself on our attitudes towards animal welfare, we must not let them down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

As my hon. Friend knows, both the previous Secretary of State and I took a close interest in what happened in Somerset and made several visits there. I know that the new Secretary of State will also want to do that. I am sure that she will meet him soon, as will I.

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

The Government’s response to the winter floods was slow and chaotic. Four months on, parliamentary answers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that, of the £10 million pledged by the Prime Minister to Somerset farmers, only £403,000 has been paid out, and only £2,320 has been paid out to one fisherman in the south-west. The Prime Minister has gone from “money is no object” to “out of sight, out of mind.” What will the Department do to ensure that people get the help they were promised?

[Dan Rogerson]

I first want to correct the hon. Lady’s misapprehension. The money is not only for farmers in Somerset; it is for farmers across the country. We have received applications from the north and the east, and from other counties in the south-west. Those applications are being approved. Applicants will be paid once the work is carried out, so unless she wants to interfere in those farming businesses and tell them that they must carry the work out in the next week, we will have to wait until the work is actually carried out before we can pay them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have regular discussions with our counterparts across the border. We take information from them and they take information from us, so we are observing with interest the vaccination trial that is taking place over 1.5% of the surface area of Wales.

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

We learned late last year that the Government would not allow scientific evaluation of the extensions of the pilot culls. Then the independent experts reported that DEFRA had failed to meet its main test for humaneness and now we learn that Ministers have no plans to scientifically evaluate the second phase of the pilot culls, which are due to take place later this year. Is there any valid reason why scientific evaluation of the culls has been abandoned—or is the Secretary of State just allergic to scientific advice?

[Mr Paterson]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her post and congratulate her on her new position. I would like to reassure her that it was always our intention, stated right back in 2011, that an independent panel would assess the first year of the pilot culls. We have had some helpful recommendations from the panel, which we are taking on board, but I think she is unfair and underestimates the professionalism of the skilled staff we have in Natural England and the AHVLA, who will continue to monitor the culls this year.

Water Bill

Angela Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

Let me end by welcoming the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new position. While we may disagree on matters of policy from time to time, I have the greatest respect for the contribution that she makes in the House—and it is good to have someone of Cornish descent facing me across the Dispatch Box.

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

May I start by thanking the Minister for his kind comments?

As it is some time since the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, I want briefly to refresh the memories of Members on it. It includes many important reforms that attempt to build on three important reviews taken forward by the previous Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability, and the Cave review on competition.

Throughout the Bill’s long passage through Parliament the Opposition have been supportive. In the Commons we voted for it on Second Reading and on Third Reading. In the other place, although we raised legitimate concerns and challenged the Government, again we remained broadly supportive of the Bill. We have backed measures to increase competition. We have supported measures that will provide a statutory basis for agreement on flood reinsurance, providing affordable insurance to households who would have otherwise not been covered. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) pointed out on Third Reading, there still remains even now a major hole at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the Government’s water policy: the absence of any serious attempt to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets, which is adding to the cost of living crisis.

Unfortunately, the Government have failed to back a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether to offer a social tariff and set the criteria for eligibility. Last year the industry made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, of which they returned £1.8 billion to shareholders, yet fewer than 25,000 people are eligible to benefit from social tariffs offered by just three water companies. In many ways, therefore, the Bill represents a missed opportunity and remains seriously flawed, despite its being improved by amendments made in the other place.

Although we will not vote against any of the first group of amendments, that does not mean that we believe that the Bill could not have been made stronger and more effective through the adoption of our amendments. We are where we are, as they say. While, as the Minister pointed out, most amendments in the group present a series of technical and drafting changes, amendments 32 and 33, amendments 49 to 52 and amendments 53 to 64 make significant changes to the Bill that was debated in the Commons.

Amendments 32 and 33, which were originally introduced in Committee by Lord Grantchester, give a new role to the Consumer Council for Water. They will require Ofwat to issue rules that will mean that the CCW must be consulted by water and sewerage undertakers on all charges schemes. That will allow the CCW to play a role at an early stage in the charges process and will enable it to flag up problems, before the relevant bills start arriving on customers’ doorsteps and further problems occur. For example, as Lord Grantchester pointed out in Committee, the CCW had previously challenged the charging plans of some companies that restricted half-yearly payment options for those on direct debit payments. Some customers prefer to pay on a half-yearly basis, as it better enables them to manage their money.

Although we welcome the amendments, which we promoted in the other place, it is a pity that the Government have not gone further by accepting our argument that we need to tackle the impact of rising water bills on household budgets. As I said, the Government could have backed our plans for a new national affordability scheme that would have ended the current postcode lottery in which companies choose whether or not to offer a social tariff, with no minimum standards in place to ensure fair and effective affordability measures.

Amendments 49 and 50 introduce parliamentary scrutiny for any regulations that the Secretary of State may deem fit to introduce under clauses 37 and 39. The amendments, which were introduced at a very late stage—I think on Third Reading in the Lords—mean that the affirmative procedure will now apply on the first exercise of those powers. That is quite right, especially given the importance of the regulations in question. It is a pity, however, that the Government have been forced into this position and have had to be pushed into introducing the amendments by Labour Members and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. That Committee made firm recommendations in this regard, and has rightly argued that the Secretary of State would have enjoyed so-called Henry VIII powers over many parts of the Act if the Bill had remained unamended, so Parliament is right to assert its right to scrutinise the relevant regulations as and when they see the light of day.

Amendments 53 to 64 deal with retail exit. I want to put it on the record that we have also backed measures in the Bill that increase competition to support businesses that wish to enter the retail market for non-domestic consumers. The measures are similar to those that have been a success north of the border; Scotland became the first country in the world to introduce competition to the non-domestic water market in 2008. We find it odd, however, that the Government have repeatedly dragged their feet in relation to allowing such businesses to exit this market. Without our persistence, which was shared by peers on the Government Benches, the Government’s original proposals would not create a market at all.

Retail exit enjoys a great deal of support, including from Ofwat, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and some of the major water companies. Indeed, in Committee, amendments introduced by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), were not supported by the Government. In the other place, Lord Whitty commented that there was bemusement in all parts of the House as to why the Government were so resistant to the concept of exit in the new retail market, and introduced an amendment that would have allowed it. His arguments were not, however, supported by the Government, who gave the lame reason that such a measure would cause investor insecurity. On Report, Lord Moynihan introduced an amendment that would have gained our support, but he withdrew it on advice that the Government would introduce an amendment on Third Reading. Although we welcome the Government’s late conversion, we have to wonder why they resisted such a measure during most of the Bill’s progress through this House and the other place. Surely it would have been more appropriate if the amendments had been brought forward earlier, to allow adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, however, we are where we are.

It is also right that, when and if regulations are brought forward by the Secretary of State, they will be laid before both Houses under the super-affirmative procedure. I pay tribute again to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in highlighting the need for that even at the 11th hour of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

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

First, I welcome the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) to her new position, and pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I understand that they have performed a job swap. The hon. Gentleman has made a big contribution to this debate and, in the past, to the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I can only apologise to both Front-Bench teams that there are not more colleagues from the Committee here today. The reason for that is that we are undertaking a farm visit this afternoon. I had to give my excuses and will be joining colleagues later for the completion of the visit today and tomorrow. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and welcome both the outbreak of common sense in the other place and in the Department and a very welcome and worthwhile amendment.

I shall briefly go over the deliberations in the Select Committee and the earlier proceedings in this place. In our report on the draft Water Bill, the Committee strongly recommended that the Bill should include provisions to enable incumbent companies to exit the retail market voluntarily. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned, the Committee tabled a new clause in my name on Report to provide for retail exit. Also, during the course of the inquiry both regulators—Ofwat and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—the incumbent companies and new entrants were united in calling for the Bill to include an exit route. WICS provided a welcome and helpful explanatory note, and I hope the amendment it proposed during the Commons stages of the Bill will bear fruit today.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, we have tabled a significant amendment that will place a new duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on progress on abstraction reform in England within five years of Royal Assent. This amendment signals the Government’s determination to progress abstraction reform and ensures that the Government are fully accountable to Parliament for the delivery of this commitment. In practice, this will mean that a written progress report will be laid before Parliament no later than early 2019. We cannot commit to a timetable for introducing legislation on abstraction reform, but our aim is to introduce the necessary legislation early in the next Parliament. The report will also provide the opportunity to update Parliament on the preparations for implementation of both abstraction reform and upstream reform, and how the two are closely aligned, as well as setting out any other progress on moving towards a more sustainable abstraction regime.

[Angela Smith]

I thank the Minister for introducing the second group of amendments, which relate to some very important provisions in the Bill.

Lords amendments 1 to 14 are largely drafting amendments, but they include some important additions to the Bill. Lords amendments 1 to 3 detail the efficient use of water resources and take into account the effect on the environment of water use, with particular reference to what constitutes a bulk supply agreement with water undertakers, and the effect of such agreements on the environment. Lords amendments 1 to 14 and Lords amendment 31 give a greater role, as the Minister acknowledged, to the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales with regard to the effects on the environment of bulk supply agreements. We welcome the strengthening of the role of these two bodies to provide environmental expertise and to prevent bulk supply agreements from damaging the environment.

Amendments 34 to 42 relate to social and environmental safeguards more generally, and amendment 38 in particular requires that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers “must” have regard to social and environmental matters when compiling their statements to Ofwat, thereby strengthening the requirement in the Bill. The change from “may” to “must” have regard is a major concession by the Government. Given the importance of securing environmental safeguards at the heart of all aspects of water management, one can say only that it is surprising that the Government did not make that amendment of their own volition, rather than as a result of facing pressure from Members of both Houses on the point.

It is important to put on the record our deep disappointment that the Government have not gone further and recognised the need to make the Bill stronger and more effective by making sustainable development a primary duty for the regulator, as is the case with other regulators. We believe that resilience and the associated term that the Government use here—“the efficient use of water”—are not good enough. In the water White Paper, the Government said that they would carefully consider the case for that, and many environmental organisations are concerned that Ofwat does not have the necessary powers to prevent environmental damage and damaging water exploitation. That is particularly important in the light of greater competition, where companies will be looking to maximise efficiency however they can. Without a tough regulatory duty, that could come at the expense of the environment. My question to the Minister about the Government’s failure to grasp the opportunity presented by the Bill to strengthen regulation in this regard is this: why have they failed to respond to this vital issue in a robust manner and safeguard our environment?

On water abstraction, the Government’s White Paper, “Water for Life”, published in 2011, set out the case for a comprehensive reform of abstraction licences, suggesting that the current licensing system was outdated and in need of urgent reform to deal with increasing pressure on water resources—an issue with which we are all now familiar. Pressures develop because of population change and climate change. The Government tabled an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report on abstraction reform within five years. That is in the context, however, of the Government’s decision to allow the introduction of greater competition in the upstream market to take effect before reform of the abstraction regime.

We, along with leading environmental experts, are concerned that without comprehensive abstraction reform, upstream competition could incentivise existing abstraction licence holders to sell their water to water companies, even when the catchment is already over-abstracted or over-licensed. In response, the Government have said that the Environment Agency is adequately placed to review and/or change abstraction licences. We do not agree with that assessment.

In his response to their lordships’ amendments, Lord De Mauley said:

“The Environment Agency will soon use its powers to revoke or vary abstraction licences without compensation where they are causing serious damage to the environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 163.]

However, following budget cuts, the Environment Agency has cut 600 staff since 2010, so surely the Minister must concede that the Environment Agency will now have less capacity effectively to discharge its duties in that respect. What will be the priority for this smaller, rather emaciated, Environment Agency—flood defence schemes or attention to abstraction reform? Given its much reduced resource, is the Minister confident that the Environment Agency can manage all its duties effectively?

Under the new market conditions created by the upstream market reforms in the Bill, more water could be abstracted from water courses than is sustainable or suitable for local ecosystems. We support the amendment for upstream market reforms to allow new water undertakers into the market, but we still think it wise for the Government to deliver progress on abstraction reform, running concurrently.

We asked the Government to bring forward reformed abstraction licences on the same day as the upstream reform measures in the Water Bill come into effect, but they have unfortunately neglected to do so. Instead, under amendments 65 and 104, the Secretary of State is required to produce a report on progress made on water abstraction reform within five years of the Bill being passed, as the Minister indicated. We do not oppose that amendment because it is better than nothing, but it is unsatisfactory overall, because unsustainable water abstraction could continue for some time after the Bill has been passed—before DEFRA effectively addresses the issue.

In conclusion, why are the Government reluctant to commit to ensuring that the abstraction reforms run concurrently with the upstream marketing reforms? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer on that point.

[Miss McIntosh]

I shall make just a few comments. Over the last three years, events in Yorkshire have certainly shown the unpredictability of the weather, which can swing from a real flood to a virtual drought within a matter of weeks. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), whom I see in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, and my hon. Friend the Minister sat in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when we debated these issues—both at the pre-scrutiny stage and when the amendments to the Bill were tabled. It was a constant theme of the Select Committee to call for the implementation of abstraction reform—certainly by 2022. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that this will happen within five years of the Act being passed, whereas we asked for it within seven years. It looks as if we are on course.

Personally, I would have made the case to include abstraction reform within the context of the Bill. I hope this does not come home to roost in the intervening five, six or seven-year period, but given the climatic changes and swings in weather patterns that we have seen, I hope we do not rue the day that we failed to include abstraction reform in the Bill. I understand that there was no appetite for it and that the Department felt, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, that doing so would have brought an inevitable delay to the Bill.

The reason abstraction reform should be included, and the reason I welcome this group of Lords amendments, is that the current system of managing abstraction of water from rivers and aquifers was introduced in the 1960s and is woefully out of date. It does not effectively address the severity of pressures on water resources due to increasing demands from a growing population and an increasingly varied climate. The Environment Agency has mentioned that in a number of areas, including my own, it cannot, for understandable reasons, afford the upkeep of existing flood defence banks. Farm land in those areas will be prone to future floods.

Water from rivers and aquifers has many uses, and there is a fine balance between industrial and non-industrial use. I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which I had the privilege of representing as an MEP for 10 years, to see the difficulties that many industrial users such as jam manufacturers and others experienced in a climate that they were not used to. Essex has on occasions been compared to Egypt in respect of the amount of water fall that it receives. The weakness in the current system means that it could start to constrain economic growth, reduce the resilience of the water supply and lead to environmental damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The first thing that will be taken forward is information that a policy has been ceded to Flood Re. It is important that people should know that, as the scheme has a life span and the whole direction of policy is to protect more homes and to move to a post Flood Re period in due course. What exactly that information will take forward is a matter for discussion with the industry. When it comes to particular technologies or particular things that may help in certain circumstances, there are experts out there who offer that advice to policyholders. The Government’s current repair and renew scheme is in operation. There is also a body of work out there involving local authorities, which is giving people confidence in what might be done to support them. It is not our intention to be too specific as we consider this measure in the Bill.

I am sure that, like my hon. Friend, other Members will welcome this amendment, because it reflects our belief that it is important that policyholders whose buildings, contents or combined insurance policy are ceded to Flood Re know about their flood risk so that they can take simple steps to manage it. I am talking about signing up to free flood warnings as well as investigating other longer-term options.

To plan for the future, households also need to understand the likely impact of the transitional nature of the Flood Re scheme which is subsidising their premiums. Members should note that it is expected that standardised information will be sent to the customer by the relevant insurer that is ceding the policy to Flood Re, as that maintains the relationship between insurers and their customers.

Lords amendments 84 and 85 provide the power to define in regulations the meaning of “flood” and “flood risk” and are as a consequence of the amendment that I have just described.

Lords amendment 96 addresses the risk that secondary legislation made at the end of the life of Flood Re could be classed as hybrid. I can assure Members that, in any event, we have every intention of carrying out a full consultation before making that secondary legislation to ensure that any private interests are properly considered.

There are also a small number of technical changes made by the Lords amendments to the Bill. They cover the definition of the “eligibility threshold” and are intended to ensure the flood insurance measure is legally enforceable, as the risks relating to flooding are not calculated consistently across the various insurers.

On another matter, the Lords amendments to clauses 56 and 71 on the period of operation of Flood Re ensure that employment contracts within the scheme are transferrable.

Turning finally to the subject of sustainable drainage systems, we have also corrected an error to schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that unused bond funds, called in by a SUDS approving body, can be returned to the right person.

[Angela Smith]

As the Minister has explained, this group of amendments relate, to the provisions in the Bill on flood reinsurance. Again, we will support the amendments, which we believe have materialised primarily because of pressure from a wide range of Members in the other place and from the official Opposition. However, we believe that more could have been done.

In many ways, this is yet another example of a missed opportunity to produce effective and robust legislation. We support the Flood Re scheme and believe that it is important that affordable cover is made available for those who are struggling and are at greatest risk from future floods. It is also important that the policy should be underpinned by the principle of minimal impact on wider bill payers, so it is important that the levy agreed between the Government and the industry remains equivalent to about £10.50 for each UK household with both buildings and contents insurance in place.

We also welcome the fact that Flood Re is designed to be progressive, with the benefits targeted on lower income households, but we are disappointed that the Government could not support Labour’s amendment in the other place, which would have at least enabled parliamentarians to shine a light on the potential problems created by the arrangements for leasehold and tenanted properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, there are complicated qualifying or excluding conditions surrounding the ownership and occupation rules under the scheme.

The rules could also have an impact on the private rented market, as there is a fear that single property landlords, for instance, might find that their exclusion from the scheme means that the cost of insurance eats away at their capacity to invest in their properties. As Lord Whitty pointed out, the consequence could be increasing levels of dilapidated housing stock with potential impacts at a neighbourhood level. The only option that might be open to the landlord to raise funds for improvements could be to raise rents or the service charge, so tenants might suffer indirectly as a consequence of being excluded from the Flood Re scheme. The risk is clear: the number of new landlords prepared to invest and buy property will diminish in the areas that are affected. Given the housing crisis facing the country, that is not a welcome prospect.

Although we recognise that the actuarial calculations for Flood Re are delicate and depend on various assumptions, we feel it is important that Parliament understand, the position. Labour’s amendment would address that by ensuring that a report was made available so that Parliament could see for itself the consequences of including or excluding different combinations of property before taking the Flood Re scheme forward via statutory instrument.

We also feel that the Government have failed to grasp the importance of using reliable scientific evidence on the potential impact of climate change when making estimates of the current and projected number of properties eligible for inclusion in the Flood Re scheme. That is perhaps not surprising, given that the Secretary of State has been known before now to deny the reality of climate change, but the threat, as most of us agree, is real and we need to be sure that the scheme will operate effectively within its 25-year span and will be adaptable to weather conditions resulting from climate change. If they are to adapt effectively, it is crucial that households can access information that identifies current and projected estimates of the number of people eligible for the scheme.

It is entirely sensible that we should seek the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to inform as accurately as possible our calculations on the challenges that the Flood Re scheme will face over time. Only then can households truly take the necessary action to minimise risk. The Government have tabled amendments providing information on transitioning from Flood Re to risk-reflective pricing, which Labour has been arguing for throughout the passage of the Bill.

Flood Re cannot operate on a static basis. It needs to respond to changing weather patterns, and we continue to believe that the Secretary of State should take advice from a credible expert source. Lord Krebs, chair of the adaptation sub-committee, has indicated that he would be willing to take on that role. However, our amendments, along with others on access to the national database and the right to appeal, were not accepted by the Government. We think that is short-sighted, but we support the amendments in this group and will continue to engage positively on this important issue.

[Miss McIntosh]

When we took evidence on the insurance aspects of the Bill during the Select Committee’s scrutiny stages, we were told that the package on Flood Re stood as a whole and that we could not consider any exceptions—not small businesses or leaseholders, or anything else, and certainly not band H. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will permit me a wry smile as I see that some of those exceptions have been included.

I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify the position on leaseholders. I—like many others, I am sure—have been contacted by constituents asking me to consider the implications for an owner who buys a leasehold property, as my constituents did in their block of flats. Apparently, the cost under Flood Re of the flood insurance alone will run to thousands of pounds, which they cannot afford and which they believe will affect their ability to resell those properties. I would be grateful for an explanation of where we are on that.

I understand that my noble Friend Lord de Mauley confirmed in the other place that domestic contents policies will be available to all under Flood Re, regardless of whether the properties are leasehold or freehold, rented or owned-occupied, except for properties in band H and those built since 1 January 2009. I have seen on many of my flood visits around the country that tenants on low incomes are often the first not to take out an insurance policy for their contents. The cost is therefore greater when they have to replace many of their possessions, some of which are of course priceless and cannot be replaced. Will domestic contents policies indeed be available to all?

Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm the intention behind the exception for band H properties? It seems bizarre. We are going to exclude from Flood Re leaseholders who are perhaps on lower incomes and often in smaller, more affordable properties, but people in band H tend to be wealthier and in a better position to afford insurance. I want to understand the situation so I can explain to my constituents why these exceptions have been considered.

I know that the date of 1 January 2009 was taken as the benchmark, but did the Department ever look closely at why that was a good date to choose? With hindsight, should it perhaps have been 1 January 2012 or 1 January 2013, when we first began closely to scrutinise these issues through the proposals from the Department and the work of the Select Committee and others in this place?

It would also be helpful to understand the position for small businesses, particularly farms. If the farmhouse itself has been flooded, will that be covered in the provisions of Flood Re?