Flood and Water Management

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

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

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Walker; it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome the Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from later.

I am delighted that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has secured this debate. I thank my fellow members of the Committee for their hard work on the report and its conclusions. We had some powerful evidence, reflecting the importance of this important policy area and the human consequences when flooding occurs. I should also like to record our thanks to our expert advisers for their help in preparing the report and subsequent work, particularly our current work on the natural environment White Paper.

The Committee published its report in December 2010. We had many written memorandums of evidence and a number of evidence sessions. The fact that it is our first report of the new Parliament demonstrates the importance that we and the Committee attach to water and flooding issues. To help hon. Members, particularly the Minister for his summing up, I will focus on the points of concern that have emerged from the Government’s response and on matters outstanding from both our Committee report and, indeed, legislation pending since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was passed.

Water and flooding are key issues raised by constituents with MPs. I am sadly all too familiar with flooding, both in my former constituency, Vale of York, and my current constituency, Thirsk, Malton and Filey. The report reflects the fact that UK weather presents us with twin challenges of flooding and drought, as well as challenges to the water industry and consumers that include affordability and the rising cost of water bills and many other bills. As consumers of water, our constituents need assurances that they will continue to receive consistent, clean, affordable supplies. As householders and businesses, they need to be confident that their properties can be protected as far as is reasonably practicable from risks of flooding.

The increasing likelihood of severe weather events such as floods and drought is also a challenge for the farming community. Many farmers and landowners are involved in managing flood risks, which comes at some cost. I will share with the Minister concerns that have been raised in the run-up to today’s debate. In preparing our report, the Committee received evidence from the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. In particular, the NFU is concerned that land should not be seen as a free resource, particularly if used as temporary storage for water in times of flood, causing loss of crops as well as other losses.

Water has been a key issue to the EFRA Committee. The previous Committee, on which I also had the privilege to serve, looked into the response to the 2007 floods and the Flood and Water Management Bill, which was enacted in 2010 and was considered to be the essential first step in putting in place a comprehensive and consistent framework for managing flooding and early work on key aspects of water management. I should perhaps declare an interest, because I sat as a shadow Minister on the Bill Committee and followed its passage extremely closely.

I will sum up the challenges that remain. Partnership funding for flood defences has come on stream for the first time this year.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

We spend a lot of time talking about flood defences. Does the hon. Lady agree that general maintenance, dredging and all that goes with it are just as vital as the flood defences?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I know Workington and Maryport extremely well, and our hearts go out to those colleagues, particularly in Cumbria, who suffered in the floods. If he will permit me, I will mention the role that farmers, landowners and, in particular, internal drainage boards play in dredging and maintenance. In the visits that I have made over time to areas that have been badly affected by flooding in my constituency, other parts of Yorkshire, Cumbria and elsewhere, I have heard anecdotal evidence of an absence of maintenance and dredging. I was shocked to hear recently that Cod beck, which caused the flooding in Thirsk and where flood defences have still not been built—the Minister might put that on the wish list that he will take away with him today; we are still anxious to get the flood defences built in Thirsk—has not had any maintenance for the past two or three years.

I might go further than my Committee colleagues and our conclusions in the report. I would like the internal drainage board to be allowed to agree a programme of maintenance and dredging with the Environment Agency. On the recommendations, it was the wish of Sir Michael Pitt that there would be an annual maintenance and dredging programme on the Environment Agency website, which the public would be able to see. We have established, however, that the moneys given by internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency, not least in my own region, are not being used for dredging, for a number of reasons. I want that money to stay with the IDBs for a programme agreed with the Environment Agency, but for the IDBs to use their resources and their engineers to maintain main watercourses.

I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which has contacted me to express its disappointment that no new internal drainage boards have been created yet. I know that the subject is close to the Minister’s heart, so when he sums up, will he tell us the position on the creation of new internal drainage boards? All those bodies have a role to play, but it should not be the Public Bodies Bill that sets out the legislative provisions; they should all form part of the water Bill, which we anticipate keenly.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I support that request and wish to reinforce the recommendation in the Committee’s original report. On IDBs, the Government response says that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is

“considering what changes should be made to funding arrangements”.

I hope that that review will happen sooner rather than later. IDBs do a fantastic job from the ground up, with a real understanding of the topography of areas such as Holderness, which I represent. I want local people to be able to hold the money and commission effective flood protection, whether from the Environment Agency or another body. I am convinced, as is my hon. Friend, that putting it in the hands of local people rather than the agency will be more cost-effective.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and for his invitation, which I was able to accept, to visit some of the areas that had been affected in Beverley.

Partnership funding for flood defences, which was introduced only this year, will of course be limited to the amounts that can be raised. The level of funding is the key to the success of our report and the message that we gave, as well as the success of the 2010 Act itself. I have a direct question for the Minister on the business of funding, particularly the levy-raising powers. I and many other hon. Members represent deeply rural constituencies. A concern has been expressed that, where there is not an established local levy, there may be constraints on the amount that can be raised. The Minister must realise that there is a limit to how much any individual local authority can afford because, as we note in the report, budgets have been reduced as a result of the comprehensive spending review.

We welcome the fact that regulations on the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains have proceeded, but the Minister must respond to the concerns expressed in our report, which are reflected across the country, about how we can recover the costs, which are either non-funded or underfunded. It will be helpful if the Minister responds to the water companies’ direct concern about that.

Colleagues would be disappointed if I did not mention sustainable drainage systems. We need to know the commencement date for the relevant provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Are we really looking at a delay until 2012, and if so, do we as parliamentarians accept that? I put it to the Minister that we do not. I do not think it would be appropriate to have a phased introduction of sustainable drainage systems. The country is crying out for sustainable drainage systems to be introduced with a specific target date—I hope, by the end of this year. When will the regulations be laid and what consultation period is required? The time needed for preparation makes those provisions coming into effect this year a very tight timetable, and there is concern that they will be postponed until next year.

I want to place on the record my views on misconnections and the ending of the automatic right to connect. Sir Michael Pitt was extremely clear and categorical on that. I am not sure that we have reached an end to the automatic right to connect. I would like to make water companies statutory consultees on the same basis as the Environment Agency is. Many water companies have loose arrangements with the planning authorities, but it is important that we enshrine that in law. Water companies should be made statutory consultees on any future planning applications to limit potential misconnections as far as possible. I touched on the maintenance of watercourses in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), but I repeat that we need as many engineers as possible and that we should use the internal drainage boards where they exist.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case on many fronts. Planning and misconnections are a considerable problem around the country, and a number of misconnections have been made in my area, but would creating an obligation for water companies to be statutory consultees in relation to planning applications make a difference to the builders putting in the equipment? The rules are very clear: they should connect to the appropriate foul water or surface water sewer. The key surely is to have better monitoring afterwards through building regulations and to ensure that the plans and specifications have been followed.

[Miss McIntosh]

I think we need both approaches. The system is failing because of the lack of consultation with water companies. Because they are not statutory consultees, they are being asked to link up to new developments where they do not think it is appropriate. One example is a proposal to build 300 houses in Filey on an area that is prone to flooding; the water company has said that there will be great difficulty in connecting, but I do not see where the planning inspector can overrule the local authority. The Committee’s key message was that more than 5 million properties in England are at risk of flooding—that is a Government and insurance industry figure—and, at the same time, the UK faces increasing economic and environmental challenges to securing clean, reliable and affordable water supplies.

The natural environment White Paper, “The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature,” has been well received and, as I say, the Committee is doing a substantial piece of work on it, but we are severely disappointed that the water White Paper has been delayed. Despite its importance, it has not been published within two months of the natural environment White Paper. I had the opportunity to express our concerns to the Prime Minister and to say that the Committee does not want any slippage in the introduction of the water Bill, which will be as important to the water industry as the Water Act 1989. I know it is not within the Minister’s gift, but I hope that the Government business managers listening will make time available early next year for that substantial piece of legislation. I also hope that the Minister will be able to assure hon. Members today that we will receive the White Paper—no doubt, with great interest—well before the turn of the year. We want an holistic approach to flood and water management, and the natural environment White Paper and the water White Paper both have a substantial contribution to make.

The extended parliamentary Session—the first to run for 18 months—must not be used as an excuse to delay the introduction of legislation if the regulatory changes are to be made without disrupting the water price-setting process. The Minister has an opportunity to set out this afternoon the Government’s timetable for finalising the provisions of the 2010 Act that have not yet been commenced.

It is an understatement to say that the White Paper is eagerly anticipated, and we look forward to receiving it without further delay. Many strands of work are involved: we expect it to look at the Cave review of competition, the Walker review of household charging, the Gray review of Ofwat and the implementation of EU directives such as the water framework directive. Time will not permit me to go into many of the concerns that have been raised about the directive, but suffice it to say that many of the water companies and, indeed, many farmers and landowners are extremely concerned about how it will take effect.

There is good news. Since our report was published, we have had the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on water affordability, which followed up from the Budget statement on 23 March. That demonstrated that the Government are committed to supporting households with water affordability pressures and households in areas with particularly high water bills, such as the south-west. I am sure my hon. Friends from that area will have plenty to say on that.

We also welcome the reforms to the WaterSure scheme, the approach to social tariffs and the options for additional Government spending to provide further support. Water companies would find it incredibly helpful if the Government—obviously, not DEFRA but another Department—could, on a confidential basis, give the details of people on benefits to the water companies, so that they can earmark and target those most at risk and those who would most benefit from a social tariff. The consultation closed on 17 June, and we now expect the Government to introduce their proposals.

The natural environment White Paper will make a clear contribution to valuing water more effectively. We heard from a number of witnesses in June and we will look further at the matter in the autumn. The national ecosystem assessment that was published in June shows that there is a great body of work to build on.

I know that the Minister would be disappointed if I did not express my disappointment at the failure of the Pickering pilot scheme for flood defences to go ahead. The Woodland Trust and others are enthusiastic about more natural means of flood defence, such as the planting of trees to slow the water down. I hope that the Minister will not feel constrained and will tell us today where we are on reservoir provision. I make a plea on behalf of many constituents, and I am sure many in the House as well: time after time, the Environment Agency seems to get carried away with over-engineered, over-expensive and over-fancy flood defence projects that fall flat on their face at the first hurdle. That is why we do not have the flood defences we need in Thirsk or in Pickering. The Pickering pilot project was innovative and looked at more natural means of flood defence, but it will not now go ahead. The money, particularly from the local authority, is ring-fenced only until next year. I am sure that the Minister would think that it was tragic if we were to lose that project for ever because of delay owing to the Environment Agency not knowing that the flood storage system it had in mind constituted a reservoir.

I again express the Committee’s support for sustainable drainage systems. Local authorities have expressed concern that they be properly resourced, and the Minister has the opportunity today to set their mind at ease. They have to be given the financial resources they need. I have mentioned water companies being statutory consultees.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I wonder whether the Committee looked at bringing in national flood protection standards. As soon as flooding moves out of the public eye, and in the face of financial difficulties, funding tends to be cut, with a long-term deleterious impact. Holland has statutory national flood standards, which trigger investment and ensure that standards are maintained. Do we not need some fundamental reworking of protections in law to force Governments and funding bodies to ensure that we have a sustainable system? I fear that if we go for a period without severe floods, we will create the conditions for worse floods in the future.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. Why has there been a delay in the consultation on and implementation of national standards for SUDS? Many have expressed to me their real concern about that. When will the provisions on SUDS be implemented?

[Tony Cunningham]

If the work is not done, large numbers of people and properties will either have huge excessive insurance to pay or will not be able to get insurance. The worry of not having one’s own house insured is a terrible burden on people. That must be noted.

[Miss McIntosh]

I will take that opportunity to bring forward my comments on floods insurance. There is an urgent need for the Government to agree with the insurance industry that when the statement of principles expires in 2013, there will be an insurance regime in place. Flood protection and resilience measures taken by householders and businesses should be reflected in a lower premium. The Government and the insurance industry both have a role to play in reducing premiums where that work has been done.

A number of challenges remain. Central to the White Paper is taking forward the three reviews that I referred to earlier: to ensure regulatory stability; to keep down the cost of capital while ensuring maximum efficiencies in the industry; to introduce changes to charging and embed the wider value of water prices in a way that is acceptable to consumers; and to meet a raft of environment challenges, including EU requirements. Of all the directives—on water framework, on urban waste water and on river basin management requirements—it is the water framework directive that is causing most concern. In the Committee’s view, there is strong evidence that it does not offer an effective means of delivering environmental outcomes within such tight resource—that is, funding—constraints. As ever, we need to work with our European partners to find agreement on how to improve the framework directive regime.

The Minister needs to respond to conclusions 45 and 46 and recognise the role of farming and agriculture in flood defences. There was a clause permitting arrangements for financial support for flood protection measures, and the Minister himself has acknowledged that proper compensation is owed to landowners. How will the role played by farmers be recognised? We are concerned about the transitional arrangements for the phasing out of regional development agencies. What are the arrangements for future payments under the rural development programme for England for those types of protection measures? There is concern about who to apply to. The RDA teams are still in place, but do farmers apply to DEFRA or to a regionally located unit? We need clarification.

These are challenging times for all those involved in flood and water management. We welcome the Government’s taking an holistic view and their attempts to link the strands together, but we have expressed concern about resources, reservoir safety regimes and the need for their reform, SUDS and flood insurance. I welcome the opportunity afforded by today’s debate and look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say and the Minister’s conclusions. What is most important, however, is the cross-party support and recognition of how significant floods are to local constituencies, and how much work we still need to do to prevent future floods from happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am secretary to the Fire Brigades Union.

I will focus on the statutory responsibility for flood preparation and flood response, although I almost feel that I should apologise for raising the matter so consistently in recent years. After the 2007 floods, the Pitt review was undertaken; its early recommendations were fairly straightforward, despite what the Committee calls some vagueness. The report recommended:

“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.”

That recommendation was fairly clear, but, referring to what the report had to say about preparation and rescue, Pitt added that

“the Review strongly believes that a statutory duty is the best means to achieve these outcomes.”

He continued:

“Whilst it is conceivable that non-statutory approaches, such as those proposed by the CFRA”—

chief fire and rescue adviser, Ken Knight—

“might work, such approaches do not provide the certainty the public expect and the Review believes is needed.”

All the evidence demonstrates that the original Pitt recommendations were correct. Despite some additional moneys being invested in equipment and in some elements of training, the evidence that the Committee received from the FBU was that things had gone backwards rather than forwards. Not enough was being invested in training exercises or in the necessary equipment. It should be blindingly obvious to those who have served in local government that if a statutory duty is not placed upon a particular local government role or function, it is no longer a priority at budget time. Statutory duties always gain priority when it comes to the allocation of resources.

I am pleased that the Committee heard more evidence on the subject, and recommendation 3 reinforces what Pitt had said. The Committee said at paragraph 26:

“We are concerned that the lack of a statutory duty for Fire and Rescue Authorities could jeopardise their flood preparation and response work, given pressures on them to direct their limited funding towards fulfilling nondiscretionary duties.”

We had hoped that the Labour Government would legislate on the matter, but what legislation we had did not deal with the question of statutory responsibility.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his declaration of interest. Is the problem in his view a matter of funding, the responsibility for which no longer lies with DEFRA but with the Department for Communities and Local Government? We stand by our recommendation, but does he think that we should go further? We say that the matter should be included in the funding formula applied to the emergency services. Does he share our disappointment that that has not been done immediately?

[John McDonnell]

The Pitt review identified two areas: clarity of leadership in a particular response and resources, because a statutory duty gives security of access to those resources. I take the view that the statutory duty needs to be introduced as quickly as possible to tackle both matters. There should be more clarity about local government’s responsibilities; flowing from that will be both the resources and the clarity of the approach on the allocation of those resources for both Government and local fire authorities.

Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to legislate, but they set up various exercises and consultations that will eventually come to fruition. After the general election, the coalition agreement made reference to the Pitt review. It committed the coalition to taking forward

“the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk”—

in other words, implementing the recommendation of the Pitt review with regard to the statutory duty. The previous Government undertook Exercise Watermark. Although they did not specifically undertake to provide the analysis for a case study for a statutory duty, we were advised by Ministers responding to parliamentary questions that the exercise would inform the Government’s decision about whether statutory responsibility would be required. The interim report from Exercise Watermark told us that there would be a final report at the end of September. Encouragingly, it also said:

“Feedback from the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) suggested the statutory duty for flood rescue should be co-ordinated by the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) with appropriate funding.”

The interim report indicated that we were moving towards a statutory duty being introduced by the Government.

We then also had the recommendations from the fire futures forum, which advises Government on general safety issues, including fire and flooding. It discussed the options for future reform of the fire service and called for the implementation of a statutory duty, but with some caveats on where the funding for such work should come from.

A consensus seems to have been built up in recent years, stemming from the 2007 floods and culminating in the lessons learned from the 2009 floods, that there should be a statutory responsibility. We simply await the outcome of the final report on Exercise Watermark. Will the Minister confirm whether that report will reach us by the end of September? If not, will he intervene—perhaps in this memorial way that seems to be being pushed to establish his reputation—to ensure that the report is finalised as speedily as possible?

If the report fails to recommend a statutory duty for fire and rescue authorities, there will be many who will be extremely anxious that this is a missed opportunity to clarify duties and responsibilities and to secure funding. If it does recommend a statutory responsibility, I urge the Minister—I am sure that Members in this Chamber will assist him all they can—to lobby others to ensure that there is parliamentary time to enable such legislative activity to take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Main.

The report was very much a team effort on the part of the Committee, and it was a very good choice to allow us to debate it. The debate has shown the breadth of support geographically and among the many hon. Members present. The conclusion is that much has been done but there is still much to do.

I hope that the Minister will extend the “yes, if” to the gross inconsistency at the heart of Government policy on reservoirs and reservoir safety. That absolute inconsistency must be addressed, in particular if farmers want to use reservoirs for storage, instead of abstraction, which a number of hon. Members might wish to explore. I hope that that will be reviewed.

I welcome the positive comments from the Minister on the role of internal drainage boards in maintenance. If we want an example of the big society, we need look no further.

I am minded to support the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the lack of a statutory duty. I have tracked the issue for some time, and we must remember that a young man was killed in Hull because all the emergency services that came, in succession, simply did not have the equipment. In sorrow more than anger, everyone turned to the fire crew to cut that young man to safety, but he died of hypothermia. The reason why the statutory duty is so important is that the money will follow the duty. If we cannot provide that, there will be further deaths, which would be most regrettable.

The insurance issues are time-framed. On planning, we need clear guidance as to how building on floodplains lies with the new national policy framework, but there are many challenges ahead. The Minister singularly failed to give us a date for the water Bill, but we look forward to the water White Paper. On a positive note, I add that we have had a good discussion this afternoon. The Minister is aware of the work that needs to be done, and we are there to support him in any way possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bovine TB

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

This is a very serious matter and I do not think it lends itself to political point scoring. I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged that this is a devastating problem. Her Government had the opportunity to do more to address it when they were in office.

The question of the science is an incredibly important and pivotal point. When the previous Government set up the randomised badger culling trial, the initial results showed that within the culled area, there was a significant reduction in TB breakdowns in herds. The perimeter of the area was where the perturbation effect was apparent. The science has continued to be monitored by Christl Donnelly, who has published and had peer reviewed findings on the long-term effect of the decision to cull badgers as a method of reducing the incidence of TB. In the longer term, the reduction in TB herd breakdowns is sustained within the culled area and the negative perturbation effect falls away 12 to 18 months after the culling ceases. That is the science and those are the facts. The scientists agree on the facts. I encourage the hon. Lady to read Christl Donnelly’s most recent publication.

The vaccine deployment trials, to which the hon. Lady referred, were trials not of the vaccine, but of the practical ability to inject badgers with the vaccine and to train people to undertake that. I have seen that with my own eyes. We have the results of those deployment trials and so those resources are no longer required. As I have said, the Government have spent £30 million since 1997 on trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers and a cattle vaccine, and we are committed to spending £20 million over the next five years to continue the development of the vaccines, which we all want to see.

The hon. Lady described the action rather disparagingly as a DIY cull. I hope that I made it clear that a high level of proficiency will be required of those contracted to undertake the cull. They must have achieved deerstalking level 1 proficiency and must undertake an additional course to cope with the physiology of the badger and to understand the health and safety requirements.

The monetised costs are a matter for the farming industry. It is a fact that it costs a modest amount more to incorporate culling as a method of controlling badgers. However, how are we to estimate the social cost to the industry from the repeated breakdowns of herds and the spread of the disease? That is also an important factor in the decision. We estimate that there will be savings to the taxpayer of £900,000 for each 150 sq km area.

On the question of whether farmers will move out of an area having entered into a consortium during the four year period, the industry has agreed to provide the resources up front for a four-year programme of culling. Therefore, if anyone should leave during that time, the resources will be available to contract operators to ensure that the culling programme is seen through. What we know from the randomised badger culling trial is that it is not good to start and then break off before the exercise is completed. We have ensured that that is covered under section 7 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The programme will be closely monitored, as I said, and we will establish an independent panel of experts to look closely at the efficacy and humaneness of it, including through a post mortem of the carcases that accrue from the culling trial, so that we can establish that the animals have been humanely dispatched.

The hon. Lady asked me about the number of badgers likely to be involved. It can only be an estimate, as there is no precise knowledge of the size of the badger population, but before any culling is carried out a detailed survey of the control area and all the setts within it will be required. We estimate that the number of badgers culled will be between 1,000 and 1,500 per 150 sq km area over a four-year period. I invite the House to compare that with the statistics produced by the Highways Agency showing that on average, 50,000 badgers are killed on the roads in this country every year.

Of course, we have been in contact with the Bern convention secretariat on a number of occasions, and there is no question of eradicating the badger population. It is a protected species but not an endangered species in this country, and the most important thing to remember is that unchecked, this disease is spreading further and further north. At the moment we have TB-free badgers and cattle in England, and we want to keep it that way. Our endeavour is to reduce TB infection in cattle and badgers.

I have given the Home Secretary an undertaking that DEFRA will take care of the police costs. I am afraid I cannot share the Home Office advice with the hon. Lady, but I can assure her that I have met the police, who are responsible for public order, on a number of occasions and discussed how they will conduct their role in ensuring that the exercise guarantees public safety, and that those who are contracted to carry out the culling can do so without fear or intimidation.

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

I commend the Department for bringing forward this extremely difficult decision. May I go back to 1972, when I understand badgers were protected for the first time in this country? The badger population grew, but infections in cattle grew incrementally. I hope that the programme will recognise the animal welfare effects on farmers, who lose not just individual cattle but often whole herds. The statement partly redresses that balance.

Who will issue the licences, and what will the conditions of them be? How broad will the areas be, and what consultation will there be on the specifics of them? The report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the last Parliament made some helpful recommendations, from which I hope my right hon. Friend will take some comfort.

Turning to vaccination in the long term, will the Secretary of State address the real concerns about vaccinating cattle and the prospect of their meat not being able to enter the food chain?

[Mrs Spelman]

I am publishing today the draft guidance to Natural England, which contains detailed information for my hon. Friend. I expect that her Committee will want to examine the conditions of the licences in some detail, but as I have said, there must be a minimum area of 150 sq km. Natural England will consult locally on each area to be licensed.

Cattle vaccination is a very difficult issue. It is prohibited by EU legislation, and since the United Kingdom and Ireland are the only two member states that currently have TB as an endemic disease, I am sure the House will appreciate how difficult it will be to get the law changed. We first have to establish that we have a viable cattle vaccine and a viable test to distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated cattle.

Flood Defences

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a privilege and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, as my immediate constituency neighbour and someone who is familiar with the problems of flooding in Yorkshire.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the implications of the potential delays to planned flood defence systems. In the short time available, I want to focus on a technical point and relate it to my constituency, North Yorkshire and Yorkshire and the Humber, areas with which I am familiar. I hope to put to my hon. Friend the Minister a once in a lifetime opportunity. I am sure that there are occasions when he lies awake in the middle of the night wondering what he can do, in what one hopes will be a long ministerial and parliamentary career, to make a difference. I suggest that he has an opportunity here and now to make a difference to a large number of people not only in Pickering, Thirsk and North Yorkshire, but in the rest of the country.

The Minister is familiar with the background to the scheme, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State had the opportunity to visit Pickering and see the work on the “Slowing the Flow” project. The Minister will know that the original £6 million scheme for flood defences at Pickering was rejected by the town and the district civic society, but, eventually, in April 2009—with confirmation in 2010—funding for the Pickering pilot project was announced. It is a unique, pioneering scheme, with Government bodies working closely with communities, where there is not an established pot of money. There are particular difficulties with the course and nature of the river upstream of Pickering, which, as you will be aware, Mr Bayley, is where the beautiful North Yorkshire Moors railway is located. The innovative and pioneering scheme involves creating buffer strips along water courses, digging ditches and blocking moorland drains, as well as planting trees.

The scheme was created with the compliance of the landowner and in partnership with the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, Durham university, as an academic partner, the North York Moors national park authority, Natural England and Ryedale district council, primarily driven by Pickering town council and the local floods group. There was extreme shock, surprise and disappointment when in June, at the eleventh hour—the technical aspect of the scheme that I want to discuss was due to start this summer—the scheme was put on hold and effectively cancelled, as the cost was deemed to have undergone a staggering increase from an initial £1.3 million to a total of £3.2 million. That was alleged to be due to the requirements of the 1996 guidance to the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the focus of my questions to the Minister and of my call for action.

The guidance states that the bunds must be able to withstand a one in 10,000 year flood event. However, one local, who is expert in the matter, has said:

“While I appreciate that more detailed modelling and info was constantly coming to light to influence the res engs decision, the fact remains that the critical factors of bund capacity of 85k m3 and the number and proximity of properties at Newbridge remained constant throughout.”

You almost could not make this up, but I did not appreciate before preparing for the debate that a community is 10 properties. Were there only nine properties at Newbridge, the scheme would proceed apace. There would be no cause for delay or concern about the reservoir. Newbridge has been there for far longer than the proposed scheme.

One option—not my favourite—would involve the compulsory purchase of one of the dwellings or properties at Newbridge. That would be the most regressive and least favoured option, but it shows how daft it is that some of the definitions, such as the number of properties that form a community, lead to perverse decisions. As my constituent goes on to say:

“I just cannot understand an anomaly within effective legislation that allows this.”

That is a reference to the fact that the interpretation of the Reservoirs Act 1975, through the guidance, is either woolly or misleading. Although it appears on the one hand that high-risk criteria are precisely laid down, there appears to be a get-out clause to lower the classification to low risk. My constituent concludes:

“I shudder to think what these obligatory Res Engineers are being paid”—

that is his personal comment, I hasten to add—

“but there is something seriously wrong when their interpretation can vastly alter the design criteria from one month to the next when all the physically present criteria remain constant…unless the application of common sense is overtly permissible.”

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to make progress.

I do not want to use the debate to apportion blame. I want to use it in a constructive way to urge the Minister to remove the barriers to this project and to other projects. There are similar difficulties in Thirsk, and the common thread of the flood defence schemes is that part of the project in both Thirsk and Pickering allows a storage bund to be created. However, that is now being defined as a reservoir under the Reservoirs Act 1975. My conclusion is that the projects are being over-engineered with structures that are too complicated, and falling foul of the iniquitous 1996 guidance note to the 1975 Act. Clearly, there is a gap between aspirations for individual projects, such as the Pickering pilot project and the Thirsk flood defence scheme, and the ability of the Environment Agency and others to deliver on such schemes.

The Pickering bund scheme has highlighted a lack of clarity about high risk and lower risk in the 1975 Act, and, therefore, a major disconnect between legislation and guidance. There is little guidance beyond the matter of actual reservoirs. It does not seem sensible to build bunds to withstand a flood of biblical proportions, when communities downstream of 8,000, 10,000 or 14,000 properties are being held back by a community of 10 properties. Those communities downstream, in that eventuality, would already be both evacuated and in any case devastated. I agree with another of my constituents that that massively over-engineered standard is denying Pickering residents protection from repeated and frequent flooding. Will the Minister confirm that the return periods are based on data since the late 1980s? In that case, one in 10,000, or 235 cubic metres per second, can barely be described as an educated guess. On what basis were the figures reached? Pickering starts to flood at 12 cubic metres and seriously floods at 15, but in 2007 there was approximately 29 cubic metres. At 235 cubic metres—the one in 10,000 years risk—the town would be devastated and possibly extinct. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 contains no specific provisions for bund schemes of this type.

I turn next to the personal liability of reservoir engineers in the event of structural failings. It would be totally impractical to ask the two reservoir engineers to risk their personal liability, as it would result in hugely over-cautious, over-engineered and therefore over-priced structures. Liability needs to be shifted from the individual to a public body such as the Environment Agency—or, in my view, the Environment Agency’s political master, the Minister.

Well over £1 million has been wasted in Pickering, and it has produced nothing. We do not want more feasibility studies, consultants or modelling unless specifically needed for a bund. There is a scheme on the table, which everyone believed would work, and there is a great desire and the practical and political will to make it work.

I shall take this opportunity to put a number of questions to the Minister and to tell him of a number of possible solutions that I have identified. The “Slowing the Flow” project in Pickering has been hampered by the fact that although it is a demonstration project, and although part of it is already under way—I have mentioned the creating of buffer strips, the digging of ditches, the planting of trees and the blocking of moorland drains—I am told that no engineer has yet quantified the volume of water that will be retained. That is staggering, given the work that the Conservative party did in opposition, the fact that the Department recently produced its natural environment White Paper and the work undertaken by a number of water companies.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

rose—

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to make progress.

“Slowing the Flow” was always a demonstration project. Implementation requires a major policy change by the Environment Agency, from highly expensive hard defences to affordable simplicity. We should keep things as simple and unstructured as possible, working with nature as closely as we can. However, that appears to be outside the engineers’ and the agency’s comfort zone. Where is the expertise? Is the answer in the White Paper? Is it already known by the water companies? If it does not exist, it should be developed. Is the Department minded to develop it?

The key to this debate is whether the Minister has the power to vary the 10,000 and 25,000 cubic metre thresholds. I understand that the reservoir guidance notes drafted by the Institution of Civil Engineers and agreed by the Department and the Environment Agency can be varied. Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 amends the Reservoirs Act 1975. New section A1(6) of the 1975 Act states:

“In making regulations under subsection (5) the Minister shall aim to ensure that a structure or area is treated as large under the regulations only if 10,000 or more cubic metres of water might be released as a result of the proximity or communication mentioned in that subsection.”

New section A1(7) of the 1975 Act states:

“The Minister may by order substitute a different volume of water for the volume specified in subsection (3) or (6).”

This is the thrust of my debate. The project could probably go ahead if the Minister were to be bold and use that power of variation. He could also instruct the Environment Agency to replace the dam at Mill lane with an automatic sluice. In the longer-term, he could ask Yorkshire Water to consider storing water underground through enlarged sewer pipes. He could even instruct the Environment Agency to compulsorily purchase one of the 10 properties at Newbridge. I have been reliably informed that the chances of finding extra money or exploring local authority options through the flood defence committee or through development gain are minimal.

This is an individual debate, and I am asking for the Minister’s urgent reply. I urge him to go back to the drawing board to find a similar scheme that can use the £1.3 million already on the table and re-examine the engineers’ judgment that category A status applies to the reservoir and the two bunds upstream. Most urgently, I ask him to waive the reservoir guidance notes by using his ministerial discretion and common sense, for which he is well known.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

That is a key point, and I will come on to talk about how we are reviewing the situation, principally in Pickering, and the implications that it will have for other areas.

The Environment Agency is responsible for technical judgments on flow rates and volumes. The Institution of Civil Engineers is the expert, and it is vital that we have such organisations. The Environment Agency has assessed with the panel engineer the volume of water that needs to be stored. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a point about powers that I may or may not have to do with variation. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the threshold has been reduced from 25,000 to 10,000 cubic metres. That is the area in which Ministers can apply variation, depending on the circumstances. However, that element of the Act has yet to be formally adopted. When it is, that variation will be in the power of Ministers. Under the current scheme, the Secretary of State and I do not have the power to vary the rates.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted to be able to help my hon. Friend on that point; someone in the Institution of Civil Engineers has put it to me that that might be suitable for Ministers, but not under the 2010 Act. Its provisions and the reduction in rates caused shockwaves in golf clubs and farms. Those reductions have huge implications for future reservoir building, but that is not the purpose of the debate today. Under the 1998 guidance to the Reservoirs Act 1975, the Minister has the power to make an order proposing the scheme in Pickering. We have to balance removing the risk of river flooding with the slight risk caused by the presence of a reservoir upstream to the communities at Newbridge. He has the power; I urge him to use it before the House rises for the recess.

[Richard Benyon]

I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes and it is now on the record. My officials and I will look carefully at it. However, that is not the information that I had when preparing for this debate, so I will take that point away and get back to her.

Let us look at the case that my hon. Friend raises, because it is important to understand the history. I apologise to other hon. Members who might wish to intervene, but I have only a few moments left. My hon. Friend called this debate and I want to be able to answer her points. Last September, an independent reservoir engineer was appointed to assess the proposals in the context of the Reservoirs Act 1975. The Act is designed to ensure that public safety is maintained. The engineer acted in accordance with guidance produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers. At that stage, the engineer identified the reservoir as a category A reservoir. That classification means that a breach of what could be an 85,000 cubic metre reservoir could seriously endanger a community—we have already discussed what constitutes a community. As a result, it is only right that the highest standards of public safety apply. At best, a failure would increase the level of flood-water, thus defeating the purpose of the scheme. At worst, a catastrophic failure would result in human tragedy. The engineer agreed necessary design standards that should apply in this case to maintain public safety.

In March, new modelling led the engineer to conclude that a higher design standard was necessary. In May, a second opinion was sought, again from an independent reservoir engineer. The second opinion confirmed that the Institution of Civil Engineers guidance on the 1975 Act had been correctly applied and that a higher standard was needed. That led to a redesign that incorporated the higher design standard of the spillway, to which we referred earlier. Inevitably, that pushed up costs. Despite the significant local investment already on the table, the shortfall in funding amounted to around £2 million. Frustratingly, at that level of cost, the scheme is not cost-beneficial under the Treasury Green Book rules. It is not my view that the guidance is wrong. That said, the case does underline the sense in reviewing the guidance. That is a firm assurance that I can give to my hon. Friend today. A review on highly technical guidance—I have already referred to the complexity of the document—is not a quick fix, and will require broad engagement. In the mean time, I welcome efforts to reassess these proposals.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area. That said, I know that many of the innovative approaches that my hon. Friend has described are continuing in parallel. It may well be that we can fairly quickly achieve a different scheme that complies with the Reservoirs Act 1975 and has a sensible cost frame and a sensible cost-benefit analysis result. All the work going into reviewing the guidance will not affect the implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. If it does, Ministers will have the power to apply other criteria to assess whether, on the balance of risk, it is right that these schemes should go ahead even with the lower threshold.

The reservoir is clearly an important part of the plans for the area, so I genuinely applaud the real openness and innovation. There has been engagement with the local authorities, local landowners and many other partners, and leadership from my hon. Friend.

The Environment Agency and local partners are working hard to reassess the designs and to drive down costs. Other options that were originally put forward are also being discussed. Once consideration is complete—I expect that to be at the end of July—the agency is eager to continue working with local partners to explore what can be done while maintaining public safety.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. That is one of the attractions of this scheme, and is why it works well in other areas. We want to dovetail it into our planning system because it offers clarity. She is right to point out that section 106 negotiations can sometimes be a bit of a horse-trading operation and can result, in certain circumstances, in token biodiversity protection activities. This scheme offers a clear, understandable, auditable, accountable system. We are delighted by the response from a number of local authorities through the consultation process. More are now coming forward since the natural environment White Paper was published, as are developers. I hope that in the coming months we will be able to give her the assurance that she needs.

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

There is, of course, an excellent pilot project that will bring enormous biodiversity benefits to Pickering, in the form of the slow-the-flow flood defence scheme. Will the Minister assure me that the guidance regulations under the Reservoirs Act 1975, which are preventing that project from going ahead, will be swept away?

[Richard Benyon]

I have just won my bet that my hon. Friend would raise that issue, and she is entirely right to do so. I share her concerns about the application of the Reservoirs Act and its implications for Pickering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the site. We want to do all we can to ensure that the scheme goes ahead, because we think that it is a good example of how biodiversity, slowing up water, and flood protection can fit together in many areas. We want her constituents to know that the Government will look into any means possible to ensure that such schemes go ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

1. What recent reports he has received on the activities of the rural committee of the Church Commissioners.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)]

In the past 12 months, the rural affairs group has worked on a variety of issues including bovine tuberculosis, the Localism Bill, common agricultural policy reform, lay ministry in rural churches and vocations and training in rural ministry.

[Miss McIntosh]

I take this opportunity to congratulate the rural committee on the work that it does. Can my hon. Friend suggest ways in which we in this place can work more closely with the committee as it goes about its business?

[Tony Baldry]

The Church’s rural committee would certainly welcome a closer working relationship with my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which she so ably chairs. I encourage all bishops and suffragan bishops to take the opportunity of the parliamentary recess to get in touch with parliamentary colleagues from all parties to discuss how our colleagues can learn more from and work more closely with the Church, whether that is in rural areas, in urban areas or on any project.

Waste Review

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

First, I wish to make it clear that the written ministerial statement was available to Members before I spoke to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Of course the Government will work with all parties to increase recycling rates, but the recycling target is a European one of reducing waste by 50% by 2020. I am confident that we are on target. This is a devolved matter for the other nations.

It is a bit rich, coming from the Opposition, who had 13 years to get to grips with landfill. They could, if they had so wanted, have got on and banned wood, materials, textiles and metals. I fear that the Opposition are still in denial about the dreadful economic legacy that they left to the Government.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about green growth. I have just spoken to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and shared with them the fact that we estimate that there will be a growth of 3% or 4% per annum in green jobs through the waste industry because of the positive framework that we are setting out to help people do what they want to do—the right thing: waste less and recycle more.

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

I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State laid before the House today. May I share with her the fact that the district council serving my part of north Yorkshire will be well on its way to meeting the target that she has set. There will obviously be some perverse implications from abolishing LATS—landfill allowance trading schemes—because rural communities have done very well out of that.

I welcome the fact that anaerobic digestion is to be increased. It deals primarily with waste food. What are the implications for other energy from waste facilities in the next few years?

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her warm welcome for the Government’s waste review and her recognition that LATS fulfilled a role whose impact the landfill tax has largely overtaken in helping us reduce the amount that goes to landfill.

At the same time as publishing the waste review, I have published the Government’s anaerobic digestion strategy. We see the future for anaerobic digestion as very important. The Select Committee Chairman makes an important point. It is not just food waste that can be used as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion, and we must be careful that food crops are not caught as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. We should be using waste.

Wild Animals (Circuses)

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I can confirm that officials from my Department have spoken to the attorney acting for the European Circus Association, that it is developing a case, and that it expects to issue proceedings against the Austrian Government in the next few weeks.

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

I am delighted to report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently visiting the Pickering “slowing the flow” project at the request of North Yorkshire county council.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will not be a knee-jerk reaction banning all wild animals in circuses until we have taken the best possible legal advice? Is it not a little hypocritical of Parliament to receive, in the House of Commons, performers from circuses that use wild animals, and then to reject those very performers?

[Mr Paice]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Any Government must take serious heed of the legal advice they are given. Any Ministers who wilfully ignore such advice and risk the Government’s being taken to court and losing are, in my view, neglecting their duty. We have made the right decision: we have taken swift action to deal with the issue of the welfare of circus animals, and I believe that that is the right course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is worth applauding companies such as Princes that have moved over to line-caught tuna only. Many other multiples and supermarkets now sell only tuna that has been caught by sustainable means from sustainable stocks. I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said.

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

I congratulate the Minister on the negotiations about discards, which is a wholly unacceptable practice. The Commission seems to be moving towards a quota for 15 years. Will he spare a thought for the Coble fishermen in Filey who have no quota, want to fish cod at the moment, but are unable to do so under the current regime?

[Richard Benyon]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We have to work off track records and historical fishing effort. I understand the many concerns of fishermen in the non-quota areas. They want to be part of a reformed policy and I will certainly consult my hon. Friend and Members of all parties to make sure that we take forward a long-term policy that has sustainability at its heart.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What representations she has received on the report of the uplands policy review.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I begin by informing the House that I have written to the Japanese Environment Minister, Mr Matsumoto, with whom I spent a great deal of time negotiating in Nagoya, to express our sincerest condolences. As the House would expect, I have also offered the services of my Department in respect of technical expertise on flood recovery, air and water quality and radiological decontamination.

I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which she chairs, for highlighting the importance of the uplands. I have received numerous positive reactions from a wide range of stakeholders to the conclusions of the uplands policy review, which I announced last week.

[Miss McIntosh]

May I share in the Secretary of State’s expression of condolences and thank her for writing to offer the services of her Department? I also thank her for her answer.

The uplands are the jewel in our farming crown, but the continuation of active farming needs to be encouraged, particularly the keeping of livestock. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties that tenant farmers are currently suffering. Will she come up with some positive measures in the policy review to encourage them to maintain livestock in the uplands?

[Mrs Spelman]

We feel very strongly about the value and potential of our uplands, which have been overlooked for too long. That is why, as a new Government, we have prioritised our review of uplands policy. Our intention is to support and encourage all hill farmers to become more competitive, and we have made available up to £6 million a year more for environmental stewardship schemes. When I launched the review, I impressed on landowners that they should be constructive when they receive requests from tenants to participate in such schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am very happy to tell the hon. Lady that our plans to roll out superfast broadband to rural communities will assist all entrepreneurs, including women, and rural areas will be able to see the benefits of superfast broadband in the creative industries and every other kind of industry. We have put £530 million over the next four years into that, so it will be happening very soon.

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

T3. I wish to raise the whole sorry saga of the single farm payment, as administered by the Rural Payments Agency. One farmer in my area has not received payment since 2009. I understand that the target for March will not be met, that the accuracy of the figures remains woefully short of what might be expected and that we risk incurring EU fines. Can the Minister assure the House that that will not be the case this year?

[Mr Paice]

As my hon. Friend said, the new Government inherited a catastrophic situation with the RPA, which had incurred for the country massive fines from the EU as a result of late payments and inaccuracies—I am determined not to repeat that. I am extremely sorry that we are not going to be able to meet the target for end of March payments, but we are determined that this year’s payments should be accurate, rather than have a continuation of the problems of errors and the fines that then ensue. I am determined to get money flowing as quickly as possible to the many farmers whom I recognise need it.

Flood Defence Allocations

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is considerable interest in this subject, but there are two important statements, and other demanding business, to follow. There is pressure on time, so short questions and short answers are essential.

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

The House will not be taken in by the crocodile tears of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), whose Government changed the points system in 2005, depriving many towns such as Thirsk of protection from floods. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that any local levy he seeks to raise will not trigger the 2.5% increase that would lead to a local referendum? Will he work with the insurance industry to see whether local resilience measures for houses could be extended to business properties and whether a lower insurance premium could then be attracted?

[Richard Benyon]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

My hon. Friend is right to urge caution. There are two slightly different perceptions. One is of the dogs that people use as fashion accessories, such as the pit bull-type dogs used by the louts that we sometimes see walking about the streets. However, the tragedies often involve household pets that, for some reason, have gone wrong. We have to bear that in mind and look at the whole picture.

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

17. What recent estimate she has made of the level of farm incomes; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

The latest forecasts of farm incomes were published on 27 January. They indicate that average incomes are likely to show a marked increase in 2010-11 on arable farms, but to fall on livestock farms. I am sorry to say that the current price for grain is likely to increase that differential.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is the Minister aware that incomes are expected to drop by 60% for pig farms, 30% for sheep farms, 48% for farms with grazing livestock and 24% for dairy farms, and that the increase for arable farmers that he referred to is due only to the single farm payment? In the context of common agricultural policy reform, will he assure the House, and farmers, that the emphasis will remain on farm production and on ensuring a fair return to our producers?

[Mr Paice]

I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to attribute the rise in arable income to the single farm payment. It is because the price of wheat today is more than double what it was a year ago. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, our approach to the common agricultural policy is about trying to drive up productivity and competitiveness and to stop wasting money in areas in which it should not be spent. That is why we want to see a greater proportion of the funding spent on pillar two, in which we can actually aid competitiveness.