Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Among the different sources of nitrogen dioxide emissions, river traffic is indeed a substantial emitter. Glasgow City Council and officials from the Department will take that into account.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister to his place. Last year, the Government wrote a letter to all local authorities, trying to blame them for the 29,000 deaths that air pollution is causing every year in the UK and saying that any fines imposed by the EU for failure to comply with the air quality directive would have to be paid by them. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the Government who are solely responsible for compliance and any fines arising, will the Secretary of State write again to all local authorities to accept her responsibility and overturn her previous threatening letter?

[Rory Stewart]

I am very happy to discuss that matter in detail, but as the shadow Minister said—[Interruption.] “Say yes”, it is suggested from the Opposition Front Bench. As the shadow Minister has acknowledged, we need to tackle this issue in partnership with local authorities. The prime responsibility needs to reside there because the sources of the emissions are quite different from one local authority to another, and therefore the solutions will be different from one local authority to another.

Air Pollution (London)

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on initiating this timely debate. She has laid down a serious challenge to both the Mayor of London and the Government.

Of course, the Mayor now has a dual role, as he is also the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). I hope that his new responsibilities lead him to question seriously the adequacy of some of the measures that he has proposed as Mayor to tackle air pollution in this great city. In his constituency, the children at Pinkwell and Cherry Lane primary schools face carcinogenic air pollution that is twice the annual legal limit. We know that children attending primary schools within 150 metres of a main road grow up with lung capacity impaired by up to a third, and that they have an increased risk of asthma and heart disease. Indeed, along with others this afternoon, I will host an event with the healthy air campaign precisely to highlight those risks and to encourage hon. Members to press for real and urgent change.

The impact of air pollution on London’s children is shocking. We know from Public Health England that London’s toxic air has already caused more than 1,300 premature deaths this year. That the poorest children are worst affected, with those least able to defend themselves the most exposed to that danger, should make us feel particularly ashamed. In Britain, health inequality has become inseparable from environmental inequality, and it is quite simply the poor who live in the most polluted environments. No one would choose to live or go to school on a dangerously polluted road; those who do usually have no choice in the matter. They are forced to live with the risks, but the Government do have a choice and a responsibility.

The Government spent three years in court trying to wriggle out of the responsibility placed on them by annex 15B to article 23(1) of the air quality directive. They argued that the directive put no requirement on them to prepare a plan to improve the situation, but the judgment was absolutely precise about the seriousness of the breach. The ruling was:

“The new government should be left in no doubt as to the need for immediate action, which is achieved by an order that new plans must be delivered to the Commission not later than 31 December 2015.”

The Government revealed in court that they did not believe they would solve the air pollution issue under their plans until 2030. Particulate matter alone is currently responsible for more than 3,000 deaths a year in London. When the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants is finally allowed to report its findings on nitrogen dioxide next month, it is predicted that that figure could double. A conservative estimate, therefore, suggests that by 2030 the Government’s failure to tackle air pollution could lead to the death of more than 50,000 Londoners. In the words of the judgment, the Secretary of State has an

“obligation to act urgently under Article 23(1), in order to remedy a real and continuing danger to public health as soon as possible.”

The Government and the Mayor have been playing a mutually convenient blame game. Last year, the Government wrote to every local authority in which air pollution exceeded legal limits to explain that ultimate legal responsibility for air pollution lay with local authorities and that any fines levied on the Government would be passed on to them. The Supreme Court judgment shows that that letter was wrong, so, in the light of that judgment, will the Government send a correction letter to all those local authorities?

The Minister is not the only Member who needs to send out a correction letter. Over the weekend I received a briefing from the Mayor on air quality in London for today’s debate. I am sorry that he could not be here—my office contacted his office earlier and found that he was attending an LBC pre-record, which clearly took priority. In bold type, the briefing says,

“London does not have the worst air pollution on the planet”.

We must all be relieved about that, though actually a presentation at the environmental research group at King’s College London by Dr David Carslaw last year suggested otherwise. On Oxford Street, the annual mean nitrogen dioxide, measured continuously, was 135 micrograms per metre cubed, while World Health Organisation guidelines state that the average should not exceed 40. The WHO also states that levels should not exceed 200 micrograms per metre cubed for more than 18 hours in a single year, but Oxford Street recorded levels above that—not for 18 hours, but for 1502 hours in a single year.

While the Mayor’s briefing is careful to talk only about average annual levels of nitrogen dioxide, Dr Carslaw is quite explicit when he refers to both the Oxford Street figures. He said:

“To my knowledge this”

level

“is the highest in the world in terms of both hourly and annual mean.”

Of course, as the Mayor has done so often, he has used distraction technique. This is not some perverse international contest of “my pollution is bigger than yours”. The real issue is that the average annual nitrogen dioxide level in London’s busiest street was more than four times higher than the World Health Organisation says it should be. It exceeded the maximum permissible hourly spikes by more than 8,344%. That is the issue, and no amount of international comparison can render that acceptable.

The Mayor’s briefing claims that since 2008, when he took office, there has been a 12% reduction in nitrogen dioxide. By my reckoning that still leaves us with a very long way to go. It also says that

“London is implementing the most ambitious package of measures of any world city”,

and it cites the ultra-low emission zone as proof of that. I am sorry that the Mayor does not consider either Berlin or Copenhagen to be a world city.

Low-emission zones have already dramatically reduced air pollution here, but the truth is that London’s proposed ultra-low emission zone will not come into effect until 2020, and even then it will apply only in the central congestion charging zone and cover only 7% of the main roads in London that suffer from the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution. It will also exempt buses from meeting the highest Euro 6 standard and require only that all new taxis are zero-emission-capable by 2030. The other 93% of the most polluted roads in London will be outside the zone and may in fact experience greater pollution as more vehicles circumvent the zone and come into more residential and poorer parts of the city. If ever there was a perfect example for the phrase “Too little, too late”, that is surely it.

[Andy Slaughter]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech; he is absolutely demolishing the Mayor’s atrocious record on this issue. Perhaps he might like to think about standing for that position. We had heard two pitches for the post, but we have had three now.

[Barry Gardiner]

Enough, already. With cities across Europe adopting low and ultra-low emissions zones, there is a huge prize for manufacturers of low and zero-emission vehicles and there are significant risks for manufacturers that choose to bet against that trend. A responsible Government would reduce risk by adopting the highest standards here today. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made to establish long-term goals and timescales for a step-by-step rebalancing of fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, consistent with reducing not just CO₂ emissions, but NO₂ and particulate matter impacts? Emissions-based pricing must be the way forward. To achieve that, I ask the Minister to initiate a strategic assessment of the relative benefits of the different options to encourage the manufacture and purchase of low and ultra-low emissions vehicles.

On one point the Mayor’s document is certainly correct: the Government and the EU need to take complementary action and work with local authorities such as TfL to create a national framework of low emission zones, accelerate the uptake of zero-emissions vehicles and ensure that the Euro 6 standard does not reproduce the mistakes of Euro 4 and Euro 5, where the actual performance under road conditions is vastly inferior to that under test conditions.

The trouble for the Minister is that his Government’s own reports show that, far from trying to improve the standards, they have been working to undermine those very EU air pollution regulations since 2012. On 1 April 2015—I assure you, Mr Crausby, that I have not got the date wrong—the Government announced that, as part of their red tape challenge, they were working in Europe to undermine the enforcement of the air pollution regulation. The announcement said:

“Working in partnership with other Member States,”

the Government would

“negotiate to: reduce the risk of financial penalties from noncompliance, especially in relation to nitrogen dioxide provisions”.

Somewhat ironically the paragraph ends:

“whilst maintaining or improving health and ecosystem protection”.

The Minister is no fool. I respect him greatly. He must recognise that there is a causal relationship here. We cannot introduce amendments to the air quality directive that raise the permitted limits of nitrogen dioxide and improve public health at the same time. The Government need to wake up and take responsibility for this public health crisis. Extensive lobbying efforts by environmental and health organisations persuaded the Government and the European Commission to abandon efforts to dilute the clean air directive. The new Minister therefore has an opportunity to start with a clean slate. I ask him in his summing up to make a commitment today to dropping all objections to current European standards, except those made on the basis that the standards are too weak, and to work to increase air quality in Europe, the UK and London. If he will not make that commitment, will he answer one final question: what is the point of a Government who cannot and will not deliver clean air for their citizens?

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Select Committee on Environmental Audit has used a traffic light system to assess the Government’s performance over the past five years. On air pollution, it has given the Government a red light; on biodiversity and wildlife, it has given the Government a red light; and on climate change adaptation, flooding and coastal protection, it has also given the Government a red light. This Government were supposed to be the greenest Government ever, so why are they ending their time in office without being awarded a single green light?

[Dan Rogerson]

During my time in office, I have been happy to give evidence repeatedly to the Environmental Audit Committee, though I might disagree with some of its conclusions. I am happy to say that this Government are making improvements on air quality. There are issues with nitrogen dioxide, but they are being addressed at European level. We are improving our status in the important area of biodiversity in this country. We are improving our water quality. Across a whole range of areas, this Government are taking action to improve the quality of our environment and to establish, through the processes of the Natural Capital Committee, the importance of our natural capital now and in the future.

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Bill may remind some hon. Members of episode 39 of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. Unfortunately, the Bill does not, in the immortal words of Michael Palin:

“shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.”

It seems more like the stuff that that phrase was describing. I will briefly address the three issues raised by the subject of the Bill: bat habitat in the non-built environment; bat habitat in the built environment; and the legal protection of bats.

First, on bat habitat in the non-built environment, during the 20th century bat numbers plummeted in parallel with dramatic changes in the countryside. Several species of bats were seriously threatened. In the past two decades, one species, the greater mouse-eared bat, became extinct as a UK breeding species. Although all the species monitored appear to be either stable or increasing according to 2014 records, those positive results should be considered in the context of historic severe declines in bat populations. That decline was particularly great in the second half of the 20th century. More sustained population increases will be needed to indicate recovery from that extended period of decline.

The increase in bat populations between 1999 and 2012 should be celebrated as a success of the current regulations. It was also a success for the Bat Conservation Trust and the public, private and voluntary organisations involved in bat conservation. However, it should not be an excuse to set aside the regulations that have precisely achieved that success. We should remember that one year of poor summer weather in 2012 caused a very sharp dip in the population.

The Bill seeks to prevent the occupation of a new building in an area where there is existing bat habitat unless a bat box or artificial roost for each species of bat located in the vicinity is put in place. In so far as that goes, that is welcome. However, it might be more logical to say that the building could not be occupied if it was taking the space where that bat habitat had previously been unless the new bat boxes and the artificial roosts that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to provide were also occupied. That might indicate that some translocation had taken place and provide a degree of comfort, but that is not in the Bill.

It also seems somewhat odd that the same provision, as contained in clause 1(2), has not been inserted into clause 1(3), because in it we find that

“No wind turbine for which planning permission is required shall be constructed unless prior to its construction a local bat survey has been conducted and it has been established that no bat habitat is located in the vicinity”.

It might be more logical, and certainly more in keeping with the first two subsections, if the hon. Gentleman had said that it should not be provided where bat habitat is found, unless, as he has proposed in subsection (2), that

“a bat box or artificial roost for each species of bat located in the vicinity”

has been provided. There is an internal inconsistency in the Bill, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise and seek to rectify and remedy.

The information currently available on bat behaviour in the UK is not sufficient to assess the threat that wind turbines may pose to populations. Anecdotal records of individual collisions exist, but no quantified data at the colony or population level are available. Natural England and Bat Conservation Trust guidance should be followed. That is all we can say based on the evidence we have, so the hon. Gentleman’s efforts go beyond what the evidence base suggests.

Let me turn to bats in the built environment. Bats and people have been sharing dwellings for thousands of years. In the UK, this is most notable, of course, in our churches and cathedrals, as natural roosting sites have become scarce due to development and land use change. The number of artificial roost sites has increased in the form of houses, bridges, mines and barns, but particularly churches and cathedrals.

Natural England, English Heritage, the National Churches Trust and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings all have excellent advice available on how to manage a building where bats are also present. If work is required on a property that has the potential to disturb a bat roost or if issues arise as a result of bats and humans living in close proximity, that advice is available for any dwelling or church.

Due to the good will and expertise of a very large number of licensed volunteers in the UK, there are many instances where such advice can be offered free of charge. It is offered in the form often of a phone call or an e-mail or sometimes in the form of a physical visit to the building to inspect. The visit will result in a letter detailing how to carry out the work with the least disturbance to the bats. This might mean that the work has to be carried out at a particular time of year, which might in some instances cause some of the delays to which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) alluded. Bats are usually only seasonal visitors to roosts. Sometimes the particular materials that can be used might be affected, but it is neither possible nor desirable—nor, I believe, necessary—to take the actions set out in the Bill.

The suggestion that we should remove certain buildings from the habitats directive altogether is, frankly, absurd. It serves only as a superb example of how an obsession with Europe and a disregard for our natural environment can be combined with a dislike for wind turbines. There is no reason and no excuse for watering down legal protection for bats. We should let the work of Natural England—it is already engaged with this work—improve the regulation. It should run its course and we should revisit the issue when we have adequate evidence and viable alternatives on which to base a debate. The Bill is ill conceived, inconsistent and I urge the House to reject it.

Control of Horses Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

As it happens, until a couple of years ago we had, in the meadow next to our house, a pony—that sadly died at the age of 35, which I think is going it some, frankly. It was as a result of the knowledge of our own pony, who was called Porky, that I moved this amendment. If this amendment is unnecessary and we do not need to describe what a horse is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) suggests, I will move on to my second and third amendments.

I think these two amendments are more important. I think they genuinely address what may be a problem with the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt set me right on that when he comes to speak. I think the problem may be this: the detention of a horse under the provisions of this Bill could be continued beyond 24 hours if the person who detains the horse does not know to whom the horse belongs, provided he tells the police about it, but it could not be continued beyond 24 hours if the person who detains the horse does know to whom the horse belongs, but does not know how to get hold of him. These amendments are intended—despite my own, no doubt, cack-handed drafting—to deal with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome will no doubt tell us whether they achieve the clarity and helpfulness I intend to achieve, but that is the purpose behind them.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

One can only speculate as to why the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) has brought forward this group of amendments. However, Opposition Members would not wish them—or amendment 4, which is to be debated later—to delay the passage of the Bill, so I will be brief.

Amendment 1 attempts to clarify further the definition of what actually constitutes a horse, and I would encourage the Minister to put on the record later in the debate a full definition and whether, indeed, this covers a jennet or a pony. The term “jennet” is used to describe a Spanish jennet horse. It is, I understand, a fairly new breed registration dedicated to an attempt to recreate the coloured variety of gaited horses that resembles the historical jennet or “Spanish jennet.” It would seem obvious, therefore, that the term “horse” as already used in the Bill would cover a jennet, but I await the Minister’s response.

The term “pony” is used to describe a small equus which, depending on context, can be a horse that is under an approximate or exact height at the withers—usually 14.2 hands, if memory serves, with the hand being 4 inches in imperial measure—or alternatively is a small horse with a specific conformation and temperament. Again, the Minister may wish to elaborate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 4, line 20, leave out “and Wales”.

I have tabled this amendment because I am puzzled. In 2014, the Welsh Assembly passed the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014 to deal with this issue. As this is now a devolved matter, there is no reason why it should not have done so; indeed, there is every reason why it should. Clause 1(1) of this Bill states that

“a local authority in England may detain a horse”,

and the entire Bill seems to apply to England until we get to clause 5(2), which states:

“This Act extends to England and Wales.”

That leaves me wondering what on earth Wales is meant to do with the legislation, and how it can extend to England and Wales. I therefore suggest that we leave out “and Wales”.

[Barry Gardiner]

I rise again to speak briefly to this amendment. It is not unusual for Bills passing through this place to include Wales in their jurisdiction. My understanding is that Wales is included in the Bill for technical reasons. The Animals Act 1971, which the Bill amends, extends to both countries, and any Bill that amends that Act needs to apply its provisions to both countries. However, because the Welsh Assembly has legislated for fly-grazing separately in the Control of Horses (Wales) Act 2014, the provisions of this Bill will in effect apply only to England. The 1971 Act does not apply to either Scotland or Northern Ireland, so they do not need to be included in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister reassured the House that the provisions in the Bill will apply in effect only to England. If that is the case, we would not wish to support the amendment.

[George Eustice]

Amendment 4 seeks to limit the extent of the Bill to England only, and not to England and Wales as currently drafted. I realise that it might be confusing to have a Bill that extends to both England and Wales but has provisions that apply only to England, but I can reassure hon. Members that this is not a mistake. The Bill extends to England and Wales for legal reasons. As the shadow Minister pointed out, the Bill amends the Animals Act 1971, which extends to England and Wales. Because the 1971 Act extends to England and Wales, any Bill that amends it must also apply to England and Wales.

I shall give the shadow Minister the reassurance that he seeks. Although the Bill extends to England and Wales, none of the provisions will apply in Wales. Furthermore, none of the amendments that are made to the Animals Act will apply to Wales. I should also point out that we took soundings from the Welsh Government when considering these matters, to ascertain whether they wanted Wales to come under the scope of this Bill, but the feedback that we received was that because they had introduced their own legislation in this area, they did not want to confuse matters further by extending these provisions to cover Wales. That is why the Bill explicitly excludes Wales. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) will not press his amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I, too, heartily congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). This is an important Bill for many people in this country concerning a matter that needed to be tackled and required attention. The serious issue of horses illegally grazing has vexed many individuals and organisations for a long time and has been getting worse year by year. I hope that the passage of this Bill will ensure that those problems are brought to an end for many people.

Recently, the RSPCA, the Blue Cross, World Horse Welfare, HorseWorld, the British Horse Society and Redwings produced a damning report that has informed much of the thinking on this Bill. That report, “Left on the verge: In the grip of a horse crisis in England and Wales” catalogued appalling neglect and animal welfare abuses all over the country, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Although it is important to stress that there are many good horse and pony owners who behave responsibly, a minority do not care about animal welfare and frequently put the welfare of their horses and ponies at risk by dumping them on other people’s land, allowing damage and other dangers to occur as a result of their irresponsible actions.

There is no doubt that irresponsible breeding and a significant drop in the value of horses has provided an inauspicious context to the development of the fly-grazing problem. The issue is also not helped by the complexity of outdated legislation, which allowed unscrupulous owners to dance around the authorities and enforcement agencies, often at great expense to taxpayers.

The problem is also expensive; the RSPCA alone spends in the region of £2.95 million a year on horses that it has taken into care. That figure excludes the veterinary costs. Many of the animals illegally fly-grazed are still not cared for and often in very poor health. The Opposition are convinced that it is vital that the issue be dealt with—not just to help communities plagued by the problem, but because we need to tackle the welfare issues arising from the illegal activity, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

As an Opposition, we have for some time been calling on the Government to act on this issue and we are pleased that the Bill is making progress through its legislative stages. We also welcome the Government’s U-turn on the inclusion of private land; one can only speculate about why private land was not included from the start, but I acknowledge that the problem has been resolved and the Opposition are thankful for that.

We have been consistent in our approach to this legislation and have co-operated fully with the Government because we recognise its importance. We want the Bill to complete its Commons stages and progress to the other place—if it fails to reach the statute book, that will not be because we have stood in its way. However, if the Bill does fail, I assure the House that, if we form the next Government, we will be determined to introduce measures that ease the burden imposed on communities and local authorities by illegal fly-grazers. On that note, I shall conclude as I do not want to jeopardise the progress of this important Bill.

Winter Floods 2013-14

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

I will not say that it is delightful to come back to the subject of flooding, because I feel that I have spoken about it at rather frequent intervals over the past year, but it is extremely good to be having a reasoned and, I hope, informed debate. I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for introducing it and for the work that her Committee did on the report.

I welcome the report, which was done when we were under the greatest pressure in Somerset, but it might be instructive for a future Committee to look back on the consequences in areas such as Somerset—what was done later, what worked and did not work—to look, with the benefit of perhaps a year’s experience or so, at whether what was done was effective in reducing flooding, and to take evidence from local people. I know that there was not the opportunity to do that at the time.

In the main Chamber earlier, in business questions, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), said that the Government were unaware for a long time of what was happening in Somerset. I have to say that that was absolutely, categorically not the case. Looking back at the record, I first raised the issue in the House on 6 January, which I think was the first sitting day of last year. Furthermore, the issues on the Somerset levels have been known for many years. Again, without claiming any clairvoyance on my part, but simply because I speak for my constituents, I have repeatedly drawn attention to the need to do more to protect the levels, including in a clear statement in 2009 on what dredging was needed.

It is reasonable to say that nothing would have removed completely the hazard last winter, when we had unprecedented levels of rainfall, but things could have been done that would have mitigated the effects, got the water away more quickly and reduced the impact on local communities. There were three basic reasons why those things were not done.

The first is the basic neglect of an artificial landscape. To me it is obvious that we need to maintain the structures that drain the Somerset levels if we want to retain the current form of its unique landscape, but that was not obvious to those who thought it was somehow possible to reduce maintenance while still preserving that unique environment.

The second reason is the malign effects of cost-benefit analysis and Treasury rules. We understand why they are in place, but they do not help when a small, dispersed population faces a massive problem. They are designed to protect cities and urban areas, and do not protect rural areas. I am glad that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton drew attention to the need to look at the importance of not only agricultural land but rural communities in flood protection zones.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of maintaining the landscape. Does he agree that certain changes in land management practice have been a real contributory factor to the problems in Somerset? In particular, there is the pursuit of maize as a crop, which leaves soil bare over winter, allowing it to flow into rivers and be washed away, and the increased subsidy for removing vegetation from the uplands. Changes to the landscape as a result of that changed land management practice have had a really important impact.

[Mr Heath]

It is undoubtedly true that changes in land management have an effect. Land compaction and the growing of different crops on more upland areas affect the rate of flow into what is effectively a large sponge. I have lived in Somerset all my life, and the landscape is still pretty recognisable as what it was when I was a boy. We could not really say that there has been a revolution in agronomy in the area; it is still principally a livestock area, and crops are grown there as forage rather than as commercial crops. Although the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will come back to later, it is possible to overstate land management as part of the cause and effect.

The third reason for the lack of action I mentioned was in my view an environmental heresy, namely the decision, for some reason, that the watercourses in Somerset were the centre of ecological interest, rather than the land in between them. That is, I am afraid, nonsense. The watercourses are artificial drainage channels. It was ridiculous to “save” the flora and fauna of the drainage channels but lose the irreplaceable flora and fauna living on the land in between them; that has been the effect.

I will deal quickly with what has happened since. The Government have done an awful lot of the things we asked them to, and I am grateful to Ministers for that. We were lucky: we had the attention of the national and, indeed, the world media for a short period of time. If the Thames valley had flooded before the Somerset levels, we might not have attracted the same attention. We secured visits from very senior members of the Government: the Prime Minister made a number of visits, as did the Deputy Prime Minister and more than one Secretary of State, as well as the Minister with responsibility for floods. We were very grateful that they came to see for themselves what needed to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I begin by welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Walker, and thanking you for your guidance in the remainder of the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Select Committee, on an interesting report. I echo the tribute that several hon. Members have paid to the volunteers who helped others during the floods, and to those who worked around the clock to save life and property.

The risk of flooding has increased and is increasing. The Government abandoned our focus on reducing flood risk, and they abandoned the commitment they made before the 2010 election to deliver on the findings of the Pitt review, which would have reduced the cost of flooding to well-being and the economy. In that, the Government failed the country last winter. In addition to gradual changes in patterns of rainfall and a rise in sea level, climate change is likely to result in an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as the floods and storms of last winter. The risk of catastrophic flooding happening in England within the next two decades, causing in excess of £10 billion in damage, now stands at one in 10—a 10% risk. That is the risk of a flood 10 times more damaging than the 2013-14 floods and three to four times more damaging than the widespread flooding of 2007. The Minister will know better than anyone that we are completely unprepared for such a flood, which would be four times greater than the largest civil emergency since the end of the second world war.

[Dan Rogerson]

I am keen to hear the hon. Gentleman develop his argument on the way forward, looking at the Select Committee’s report and the Government’s response. He seems to be suggesting, however, that actions taken or not taken by this Government over our period of office led to the flooding of properties during the winter floods of 2013-14. I should be grateful if he let me know specifically which of those properties flooded as a result of a change in policy. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) about some policies that had been changed over a number of years, and there are schemes that have been in development in other parts of the country, which may have a problem. I am concerned to clarify whether the hon. Gentleman was alleging that there were properties that were flooded through the fault of the Government, rather than as a result of the extreme weather. The future is a different matter, and we can debate that at some length, but I am specifically concerned about the winter of 2013-14.

[Barry Gardiner]

It is quite clear that the Government abandoned the focus on reducing flood risk. They took it out of the Department’s priorities. That was one of the first things done in 2010. They abandoned that focus and reduced the budget dramatically, and as a result the Environment Agency was much less well prepared, financed and resourced to cope with the floods. The Minister knows perfectly well that hundreds of posts were taken out of the Environment Agency, not only back-room posts but front-line ones.

[Dan Rogerson]

It is absolutely true that we delivered efficiencies right the way across Government. The hon. Gentleman knows the financial position that the Government were left when we came into office. The point that I sought to make was not about the available resources and so on, but about the results. I am sure he would agree that it is possible to be more efficient and still have guaranteed outcomes. There have been problems, and it is devastating for anybody to experience flooding. I will have the opportunity to talk about that and to respond to some other points later on—

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Walker. I am happy to engage with the Minister— we have engaged in many debates on such issues—but he has to acknowledge that, after coming into office in 2010, his Government specifically removed flooding from the Department’s priorities. He can only accept that that meant that the country was less well prepared for last year’s floods and is now critically less well prepared for the future. I am interested to see whether the Minister will pick this up in his remarks, but we now have a 10% risk of a flood that is 10 times greater than the flooding of 2013-14 and four times more damaging than the widespread flooding of 2007. The Minister knows that that issue must be addressed, and unfortunately the Government have not even begun to address it. Last year’s floods have passed, and the broken promises to flooded communities have been forgotten. The Government think they have got away with it.

I will briefly address the Government’s responsibility for the impact of the 2013 floods, but my comments will focus on how policy should have changed since the floods and how policy has not changed. Among the Government’s blunders, the 2013-14 floods stand out as an example of the real pain that incompetent Governments can cause to communities and businesses—I acknowledge that the Minister touched on that. For the communities and businesses affected, the floods were not simply a natural disaster. The Government slashed investment in flood protection when they entered office, and with that they broke the promise they made before the election to deliver on the findings of the Pitt review of the 2007 floods.

[Miss McIntosh]

The Committee obviously greatly misses the hon. Gentleman. From the evidence we have heard I am having great difficulty reaching the same conclusion of a 10% increase in the risk of flooding. On what is he basing that conclusion?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am happy to advise the hon. Lady that I am basing my conclusion on the reports and work of the adaptation sub-committee and the Committee on Climate Change. If she is interested, I will happily send her the references.

The Government not only cut the budget for new defences; they decided to stop maintaining existing defences properly, and they cut the budget by 20%. Why? Because they cannot cut a ribbon on an essential maintenance project—they need new projects for that. The decision to remove flooding from the Department’s list of priorities was never just about the previous Secretary of State’s illiterate theories on climate change; the larger issue is the Government’s rejection of the responsibility to protect people from risks that are beyond their control. It was interesting to hear comments earlier in the debate about the need for the Government to step in and about Flood Re, which I echo. Both coalition parties supported the Pitt review strategy that the previous Labour Government were delivering before 2010, but both parties abandoned it straight after the election because they felt they could get away with it. They crossed their fingers and hoped that no one would notice the unbuilt defences, the collapsing sea walls, the eroded riverbanks and the clogged up culverts. Forty-six of the Pitt review’s 92 recommendations have not been implemented.

[Mr Heath]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away with the idea that, somehow, the flooding in Somerset was all the result of the current Government’s misguided decisions, I remind him that the rivers in Somerset, the Parrett and the Tone, have not been dredged not for four years but for 25 years. We drew attention to that throughout the period of the Labour Government. In 2009 I told the House:

“I am convinced that if we had proper dredging of some of our rivers and proper clearing of debris and strengthening of banks on some of the smaller tributary streams, it would make a substantial difference to the way in which we deal with these matters.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 553.]

It was not done by his Government, so let us stop the nonsense of pretending that the 2013 floods were the result of this Government’s actions. They were the result of long-term neglect.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting so exercised. He was the responsible Minister in the Department at the time, and I understand that he wishes to protect his record but, equally, he must accept—I am sure he knows this—that after the 2007 floods the previous Government made huge efforts both to ramp up the funding—[Interruption.] He does not disagree with that.

[Mr Heath]

I am telling the hon. Gentleman that not a penny was spent on dredging in Somerset, which is where the floods were. Does he remember?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman has a very selective memory, because the floods were not only in Somerset. In fact, more houses were flooded on the Thames estuary than in Somerset, so he must be selective in his memory. My point is that, after 2007, the previous Government undertook a huge programme and established the Pitt review. Both the hon. Gentleman’s party and the Conservative party said they would continue to implement the review, but neither did so when they got into government. He cannot say other than that because it is the truth, as he knows. I would be happy to give way to him once again if he wants to deny it on the record, but it is the truth, and I am afraid he really has to accept that.

Flooding not only destroys property, it makes homes unliveable for months and sometimes years. Flooding ruins businesses and destroys crops and livestock. We learned from the 2007 floods that those affected by flooding display between a twofold and a fivefold increase in stress and depression. The effect of flooding on people’s lives is enormous and long lasting, which is why prevention is so important, but the Government chose to cancel new flood defences, slash maintenance and sack front-line flooding staff.

The Government like to talk about competence, but we all remember the chaotic infighting between the previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when so much of the country was under water. We all remember the failure to recognise the emergency until it hit the south-east. The Chair of the Select Committee alluded to the argument over the size of the pump and the capital expenditure and revenue dispute, which delayed action at the time. I agree with her call to consider this in terms of total expenditure, and I hope that change will eventually come. Her Committee makes an important point on that in its report.

We all remember the Prime Minister’s cruelly disingenuous promise that money is no object, and it is difficult to decide whether the original statement or the retraction of it in November marked a lower point. Will the Minister confirm how much of the flood support package for home owners and businesses has been received by those affected? Thankfully, many people were protected because, as the Committee on Climate Change has pointed out, the previous Government implemented 46 of the Pitt review’s key findings to increase our resilience to flood emergencies. We established the flood forecasting centre in 2008 as a joint venture between the Environment Agency and the Met Office. As the December 2013 tidal surge hit, the Environment Agency issued 160,000 flood warnings, and an estimated 18,000 people were evacuated from homes in coastal areas. At one stage during the surge, 64 areas had the highest warning level in place, reflecting a danger to life.

What lessons were learned? What has changed since the floods of last year? Many thousands of people were forced to leave their homes last winter. Transport was disrupted for weeks, in some cases months. Businesses were wrecked, and many closed and never reopened. After the flood, the Government promised that they had reviewed their approach to flooding and that the autumn statement would contain a proper long-term flood risk strategy. Well, the National Audit Office and the Committee on Climate Change reviewed that investment programme and found that nothing has changed. Three quarters of flood defences in England have not been maintained according to their identified needs in 2014-15. The Government’s investment plans will see the number of properties at significant risk rise by 80,000 every five years.

The budget for the ongoing maintenance of flood defences was cut by 20% in the 2010 spending review and has not been restored. The failure to maintain flood defences to the required standard has increased the risk of high-consequence flood defences, such as sea walls, failing. The failure of such defences would put lives as well as livelihoods at risk. I need to impress on the Minister that that is not simply my view but that of the National Audit Office and the Committee on Climate Change, and he really needs to take notice of it.

The failure to maintain flood defences to the required standard has led to a huge increase in flood risk. The Government have put the headline first. Of the

“over 1,400 schemes going ahead across the country”

announced by the Chancellor, only 310 are fully funded, and only 97 of those 310 are new. Some 1,119 of the 1,400 schemes may never receive full funding, because they are eligible for only 20% grant in aid funding—the rest has to be made up by partnership funding. The black hole in the Government’s funding announcements could be as large as £830 million.

The Government say their plans will reduce flood risk by 5%—true, but disingenuous, and the Minister knows that very well. The Government have put a cheap headline ahead of reducing risk for the most vulnerable. Instead of focusing on reducing risk for high and medium-risk households, they have focused on moving households at low risk into the lowest risk category. That is completely irresponsible. Limited capital investment should be protecting homes at high risk, which is a one in 30 risk, or at medium risk, which is a one in 75 to a one in 100 risk, rather than being used to provide additional protection to those at low risk, which is a risk of one in 1,000 or more. That is how the Minister gets his 5%, but it is meaningless—it is wrong.

This decision will put more homes, lives and livelihoods at significant risk. In a sign of just how far the Government are willing to go to get their headline, they chose to exclude consideration of risk to life from their analysis. If the Minister wants to deny that, let him challenge me now, but the evidence is there in the impact assessment: the Government have left out of it any assessment of risk to life. How could a Minister ask their civil servants to prepare such an assessment for them?

Does the Minister agree with the Committee on Climate Change and the National Audit Office that the number of properties at risk of flooding is increasing? If not, will he give us his figure for the predicted net change in the number of properties at high and medium risk over the next five to 10 years? Will he confirm that although his 5% net reduction figure is true, it is also true that the number of properties at high and medium risk has increased? Will he have the good grace at least to blush when he acknowledges that?

Will the Minister confirm that the long-term investment strategy assumes, against the evidence, that development on the floodplain will stop after 2014-15? The Committee on Climate Change says that 20,000 new properties are built on the floodplain each year, including 4,000 a year in areas of significant flood risk. Does the Minister disagree?

The Government’s strategy says:

“We have tested our findings against a range of possible climate change projections using the latest scenarios.”

However, if we read further, we find that the strategy assumes minimal climate change. The assumptions section on page 18—I challenge the Minister to read it—states:

“The main assumptions in this ‘baseline’ result are that the climate will change in line with the medium rate of change in UKCP09”—

UK Climate Projections 2009—

“and that no allowance is made for development in the flood plain.”

[Miss McIntosh]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully, although it is for the Minister to respond from the Government’s point of view—good luck! However, what would the Labour party do were it to form a Government? That is the missing link.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady and I have worked in partnership for many years, but I did not expect her to be my straight man in quite that wonderful fashion—I was just coming to that point, so I thank her very much.

The point I want to press is that, instead of planning for the worst, the Government are ignoring the inconvenient truth: they are ignoring the risks and abandoning the most vulnerable.

The Chair of the Select Committee asks what the Labour alternative is. The Government scrapped our approach to flooding and climate change, which was based on the findings of the Pitt review into the 2007 floods. They abandoned our focus on reducing flood risk. They abandoned our commitment to invest to protect the most vulnerable and to reduce the cost of flooding to well-being and the economy. We will deliver on the findings of the Pitt review—the other 46 recommendations, which have still not been implemented. However, a Labour Government will go further. We will introduce a new national adaptation plan based on the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations, because that is the only way to ensure that all sectors of the economy and all communities are prepared for climate change. We will end the confusion and chaos in flood investment by establishing a national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs and get cross-party support to meet them.

I conclude as I began: the risk of flooding has increased, and the risk of a catastrophic flood is increasing. The Government failed the country last winter. Now, they have tied themselves to a plan that risks catastrophic failure in the future. The Prime Minister was tested in last year’s floods, and he failed that test. Shortly, the electors of our country will have the opportunity to ensure that, when the next floods come, he is no longer in charge and in a position to fail again.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I apologise if I tested your patience a little with my interventions. I now have the opportunity to respond to and probe the arguments of my hon. Friend of sorts—the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Edward, was so keen to hear the remaining speeches that he hoped we would conclude before he left. As it turns out, however, we have now had the benefit of your chairmanship, for which I am grateful, as well as that of Sir Edward, who presided in such great style earlier.

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), for all the work she and the Committee have done. I might be seen as a little biased, having served on the Committee in the past. So, too, has the hon. Member for Brent North, and other members of the Committee are also present. The Committee has done the House and the country great service on many topics, and its contribution to this debate is very helpful. It is always a matter of great excitement for Ministers to be called before it, and I enjoy that as much as I am sure my predecessors did. I congratulate the Chairman on securing time for the debate through the Liaison Committee.

I want to start by setting some of the issues in context. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, we have had a number of these debates—some have covered issues relating to his constituency—and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said the same. None the less, it is important that we remind ourselves of the extreme levels of rainfall and the impact of the weather during the winter of 2013-14. There were record levels of rainfall, and it was the stormiest period for at least 20 years. There were record river flows, sea levels, wave heights and groundwater levels in many locations, and that led to the flooding of more than 8,300 homes, and caused damage or disruption to businesses, infrastructure, transport and utilities. Like other hon. Members, I have seen the damage caused by last winter’s flooding, and its devastating impact on people’s day-to-day lives. My sympathies go out to all those affected, especially those who still cannot go home.

There has been a major Government recovery effort to help people to get back on their feet, which included committing more than £560 million in recovery support funding. Many organisations were involved in responding to the exceptional weather, including the Government and their agencies, the emergency services and the military, and many voluntary organisations, as well as transport and utility companies. As the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is no longer in his place, said, individuals stepped forward to help neighbours and vulnerable people as part of the response effort. Also, people elsewhere who had seen what was happening wanted to help in some way and send assistance, which was gratefully received in areas such as the Somerset levels.

We have reviewed what happened and made improvements, which mean that we are now better prepared for flooding. In England alone, 844 flood defence assets were damaged last winter, including those managed by the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. In response to the exceptional weather, DEFRA made an extra £270 million available to repair, restore and maintain the most critical flood defences. Repair work at many of those sites started as soon as weather conditions allowed and, thanks to the tremendous effort by all involved, all areas will have at least the same standard of protection as they did before that winter. In discussions earlier with Environment Agency colleagues, I heard that their counterparts in the Netherlands, who watched the efforts here with interest and offered some input as to what they do in their jurisdiction, were incredibly impressed with the speed with which the repairs were done. It is good to hear praise for the excellent work done by the Environment Agency, its contractors and the local authorities it works with; they put tremendous effort into restoring the defences, given the investment.

Permanent defences were restored to more than 200,000 properties on schedule, by the end of October, and, for a small number of sites where repairs are continuing, contingency measures such as mobile pumps and temporary flood defences have been put in place to ensure that communities are protected until completion. More than 99% of permanent repairs should be completed by March, assuming that there is no further damage over the next few months—something that we need to keep a close eye on. For the remaining three sites, permanent repairs are not expected to be completed until March 2016. Interim contingencies are in place for all three sites. We are investing £3.2 billion in flood management in the current Parliament. That is a real-terms increase, and £500 million more than was spent in the previous Parliament. It includes both capital and resource funding. We are also making a record £2.3 billion capital commitment to improving defences, which is a further 9% real-terms average increase.

On 2 December we published a flood defence improvement project pipeline. We will be investing in more than 1,400 projects across the country over the next six years. That investment will protect more than 300,000 properties, in addition to the 230,000 households already protected so far this Parliament, keeping families safe from the misery that flooding can cause. It will also protect more than 420,000 acres of agricultural land, 205 miles of railway and 340 miles of roads. That investment is not just about protecting people’s lives and property now and in future. Throughout the country, businesses, infrastructure and farmland will also benefit. We estimate that our record investment will help to prevent about £30 billion of economic damage, including giving a £1.5 billion boost to the farming sector. That is an average of at least £8 in benefit for every £1 invested. There was some discussion earlier of the impact on the Somerset levels. Although quite a low number of properties suffered inundation, the economic impact lasted a long time. Rural and some urban communities had additional transport needs, and daily life was interrupted, and we must take account of that wider effect in what we do.

Tackling the risk of flooding can also help economic development and growth, unlocking opportunities for inward investment and helping to create and sustain jobs. We estimate that the benefits to the local economy are worth an additional £4 to £9 per £1 invested. Local enterprise partnerships, along with local authorities and other private sector partners, have increasingly been taking account of such issues in local growth bids when deciding where to invest for communities. That gives us confidence that the partnership model is the best approach. We can attract extra investment alongside Government investment through grant in aid.

What I have outlined demonstrates the Government’s commitment to reducing flood risk. However, that is not a task for the Government alone. Our partnership funding approach, which was introduced in 2011, has already exceeded our expectations in enabling others to contribute. We expect that the investment programme that we announced last month will attract more than £600 million pounds in local contributions, to expand on the work that could be done by Government alone. The Government will legislate to ensure that businesses’ contributions to flood and coastal erosion risk management schemes are tax deductible, as a way of incentivising their investment.

[Barry Gardiner]

What percentage of the previous target for partnership funding has been realised?

[Dan Rogerson]

I think we are on course to achieve about £140 million—I will confirm that in writing—during the present financial period to invest in those schemes. That compares with about £13 million under the previous Government, so it is a big step forward.

[Barry Gardiner]

As a percentage of the target.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman was keen to point out that many of the schemes in the pipeline will require partnership funding. We have never sought to hide that fact: it is out there. It means that record investment can go even further. We also want to continue to secure efficiencies in delivery. The hon. Gentleman has talked about the resources available and the number of staff in the Environment Agency, but it is outputs that are important.

I pay tribute to the Environment Agency for the way in which it, like many other public sector organisations, has had to adjust to the reality of the deficit that we were left, and the need to tackle it. The shadow Chancellor has been keen to get out and persuade everyone that he gets it now, and understands the importance of dealing with it; and we have all had to tackle it. The Environment Agency has done particularly well in generating efficiencies—for example, taking out the regional tier, which is difficult in any organisation. It did it, and has been able to spend the resources made available by the Government more efficiently than ever, so that we can proceed with the investments. Because of the Government’s £3.2 billion investment in flood risk management during the current Parliament and the record levels of investment announced in the autumn statement, we will over the next six years reduce by 5% the risk that flooding poses to communities and businesses across the country.

There were several discussions during the debate about the effectiveness of dredging. Dredging and contour planting are tools that can help to reduce flood risk. Each catchment is different. It would in many cases be wrong to dredge where there is a fast-responding catchment. I am not an expert, but it seems to make sense that speeding the water to the next pinch point will cause problems further along the catchment. In landscapes such as those I saw in Somerset where the rate of flow is not the swiftest in the world—landscapes that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, are man-made—what is needed when there is a huge volume of water is to try to help it to get out to sea.

[Dan Rogerson]

I have heard other Members of this House seek to debate that fact with my hon. Friend, so I am convinced of his expert knowledge of the area in which he grew up, and which he now represents so effectively.

We had many visits from right hon. and hon. Friends to the area in Somerset. As my hon. Friend knows, I was appointed in October, and the first east coast surge came a few weeks later, in early December. I went with him to Somerset early in the new year to see the impacts for myself, and came back with him and other hon. Friends to make the case for dredging work, which I am pleased to say has now taken place, as he pointed out. We hope that it will make a difference—not, as he said, by making the Somerset moors and levels bone-dry for the foreseeable future, but by helping with the management of that important landscape.

The effectiveness of dredging in managing flood risk varies from place to place. In some areas, dredging is the most cost-effective approach; in others, it would divert resources away from other flood risk management activities that are far more beneficial to local communities, such as maintaining pumps, sluice gates and raised embankments. It is right, therefore, that the Environment Agency should assess its value carefully, taking account of the other options available on a location-by-location basis, while working in very close consultation with local communities and organisations, a point made repeatedly and rightly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes.

Approximately £10 million of the extra £70 million allocated by DEFRA to maintenance this financial year and the next is being invested in dredging. That is in addition to the dredging recently completed in Somerset. Maintenance and other flood risk management work is not just about what the Government can do; we want to enable others to undertake maintenance, including in partnership with the agency. The Government recognise and support the important work undertaken by internal drainage boards to manage water levels, reduce flood risk, support local growth and protect critical infrastructure.

There are excellent examples of partnership working between the Environment Agency and IDBs; my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton was keen to make that point, and she was absolutely right. That includes sharing work programmes and agreeing to work together, for example by completing work on one another’s behalf through public sector co-operation agreements. There are now 28 public sector co-operation agreements in place and a further 30 agreed in principle, and the Environment Agency has already undertaken some work on behalf of IDBs. Such agreements can create efficiencies, and we want many more agreed over the next year. Recent work by IDBs on main rivers has included grass cutting, weed control, tree work, dredging, obstruction removal, operation of sluices and incident response.

During the summer of 2014, the Environment Agency held meetings across the country to explain the agency’s maintenance plans and give local stakeholders an opportunity to contribute to them and influence the maintenance programme for the year ahead. Maintenance plans for 2015-16 will be shared with IDBs and other risk management authorities early this year. We are grateful to IDBs for their help in the exercise to identify potential areas for dredging, as it is helping to build our evidence base on where dredging can be beneficial in managing flood risk. The evidence gathered is being assessed by the Environment Agency. Alongside evidence on other flood management options, it will help to ensure that the available funding is prioritised as effectively as possible.

The issue of agricultural land has been raised. As stated in the Government’s response to the report, we very much agree with the Committee on the importance of agriculture to the rural economy. The Environment Agency prioritises flood risk management asset maintenance according to the highest benefit, helping protect approximately 50% of the agricultural land at flood risk in England, including the majority of the most productive grade 1 and 2 land. As I have explained, we will spend more than £3.2 billion over the course of this Parliament on flood and erosion risk management, and much of the 1.3 million hectares of agricultural land at flood risk will benefit from that investment.

Capital investment also helps. Projects in the last three years have provided an improved standard of flood protection to more than 235,000 hectares of farmland. We made changes in 2011 to introduce financial contributions for worthwhile schemes to increase flood risk management work through the partnership funding we discussed earlier. Rural areas are benefiting from that approach; about 25% more schemes are proceeding with DEFRA grant in aid than would have been possible under the old rules.

Flood insurance was mentioned by a number of hon. Friends, and by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who is no longer in his place. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, given his experience in the Department prior to mine, for setting out the huge amount of work going on to deliver the Flood Re scheme. It is a very detailed form of negotiation, and we must ensure that it works effectively and does the job that it is designed to do.

I was a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman opposite—I am not pointing at the shadow Minister, but over his shoulder to where the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd was sitting, although he has, sadly, been called to business elsewhere—felt that the scheme was failing in some way. Actually, although it is an involved negotiation, we are delivering on it, and I pay tribute to all those across Government who have been involved in ensuring that we get it right, as well as to colleagues in the Association of British Insurers. We have been negotiating, which sometimes leads one organisation to face another across a table, but there is a spirit of co-operation on delivering Flood Re, which I think will make a difference.

I say to colleagues whose constituents have had problems obtaining insurance that I understand those frustrations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said, I recently attended a meeting in Somerset with constituents and representatives of others about some of those problems. Flood Re will help, which is why it is important that we move forward on delivery. I look forward to the opportunity to do something similar in his constituency, so that we can talk about some of the problems.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of the remarks made on Flood Re. Can he expand on how he envisages Flood Re will work, over the next 25 years, to move the consumer towards risk-reflective pricing, as it is supposed to? Although Flood Re certainly postpones that question, it is not clear how the transition to risk-reflective pricing will be made.

[Dan Rogerson]

Clearly, the Government’s responsibility across that period—the hon. Gentleman has alluded to the importance of considering the issue, modelling based on our changing climate and so on—is to continue investing in defences, but also to be clear in planning. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out that earlier in the last century, perhaps it was not quite as clear that development should take place in areas that will not add to problems for the future. That is not to say that there should never be development in areas that are technically floodplains; as a London MP, the hon. Member for Brent North will know that a great deal of this wonderful city is in that situation, which is why we have the Thames barrier and other schemes moving forward. We want that economic development and investment. There are other towns, cities and villages in the same situation, but we must take account of the risk and deal with it as part of any development.

[Barry Gardiner]

That raises a point of contention that I put to the Minister. He has acknowledged, and I accept—indeed, I made this point—that there still is, and will continue to be, development on the floodplain, so why, in the main assumptions in the baseline result, is that precisely excluded from the Government’s own projections when they assess risk?

[Dan Rogerson]

We are clear that we should not develop on floodplains in a way that will leave the new properties at risk. We are talking about areas that are currently protected, or that will be protected as part of development. There are ongoing local growth scheme investment programmes aimed at economic regeneration that involve flood protection as part of development. That money comes from a different source from flood defence grant in aid, allowing those communities to continue to grow and enabling us to see that investment. However, we want to ensure that we continue to invest in flood defences in order to keep people and communities safe. By using partnership funding, we can make that money go even further.

The hon. Gentleman sought to set out particular groups, saying that he felt that some might benefit more than others in the categories that he mentioned. I hear on a daily and weekly basis from hon. Members throughout the House on their concerns about areas in their constituencies. The pipeline of projects announced in December sets out for hon. Members a great deal of ambition on how we can protect their communities and keep them safer. It has been welcomed by local authorities and those communities, and they can now seek to put those funding packages together.

I was involved in a debate—not a debate, but a reflective piece—on a local radio station this week, looking back to the period we are considering today, considering what has changed since then and talking about how the partnership funding is coming together from the different local authorities in the area and the private sector to deliver a project. In that local community, they do not expect the Government to fund the whole project through grant aid. They understand the principle of partnership funding and they are participating in delivering that solution.

[Barry Gardiner]

The point I am making is a good deal simpler than that, and it does not involve partnership funding. It is simply that the Committee on Climate Change says that 20,000 new properties are being built on flood plains each year, 4,000 of which are being built in areas of significant flood risk, and yet the long-term investment strategy that the Government have in place assumes that there will be no further building on flood plains. Why?

[Dan Rogerson]

As always, I welcome the work of the Committee on Climate Change, but the basis upon which it has made its calculations is a 2009 report by the Environment Agency, which will be updated this year. We look forward to seeing what the Committee makes of the updated calculations, which reflect the position now. Our mapping and understanding of flood risk is improving and growing all the time.

I want to turn to the issue of response.

[Dan Rogerson]

When one is dealing with a market such as insurance, there is a complicated picture. There are brokers that can help with those discussions, helping to find the right policy in those locations and working with those companies that are prepared to take account of mitigating factors. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that is an incentive for those companies; they will get that business. Also, Flood Re, by giving some confidence to insurers that the flood element of the policy can be supported and underwritten, will mean that those insurers can compete on the other aspects of the policy as well, and that will help a great deal in this situation. I very much welcome the support that we have had from across the House in moving towards the introduction of that policy.

I turn now to the issue of response. Following the events of last winter, action has been taken at all levels of Government to improve the country’s resilience and response capability. The floods highlighted the valuable contribution that our armed forces can make to the response to domestic emergencies. New arrangements have been put in place to strengthen military involvement in local emergency planning and preparedness, and to make it easier for responders to access support from the armed forces in an emergency if they need it. Perhaps the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome was pointing to in discussing local experience was about when the armed forces are called. Certainly, we made it absolutely clear from the centre that that resource was available. Perhaps the problem was about perception, not reality, and what the impact might be on a local situation if that support was called on. Ultimately, the armed forces were deployed and they made a real contribution, so we are just making it clear that as they are involved in the planning process, all those relationships are much clearer, and local communities can have confidence that if there is any need to draw down that support at an early stage, it is available.

Last winter also saw disruption to our transport, energy and water supply networks. Extensive work has taken place to make sure that we are better placed to deal with any similar events in future, with action being led by both the Government and service providers. I have already mentioned the work undertaken by the Environment Agency to improve engagement with local communities, but we have also been encouraging local authorities to plan for flood risk. Bringing all their activity together in a local flood risk management strategy is an important way for local authorities to communicate with and reassure local people that they are well prepared to respond to flooding, and we will continue to encourage action at the local level. We have resourced local authorities to bring together their local strategies, and I have taken the opportunity on a number of occasions to remind in writing those local authorities that perhaps have not quite gone through that process yet that it is important that they do so as soon as is possible.

Recovery from the flooding of last year has gone well and is continuing. The Government have committed more than £560 million in flood recovery support funding. We are currently reviewing the position with regards to recovery funding, identifying lessons learned from 2013-14 and considering how Government can be better prepared to provide support during a long-term recovery programme. My officials are working across Whitehall to consider new arrangements that will ensure that future recovery schemes will be part of a clear, co-ordinated, flexible package of support, which will be easily and readily accessible by people, businesses and places.

As lead Department for recovery, the Department for Communities and Local Government is also undertaking a review of the Bellwin scheme, which allows local authorities to reclaim emergency response costs incurred to protect lives and properties. A number of changes to the scheme have been considered in light of last winter’s experiences, and DCLG consulted on those late last year. That consultation closed on 1 January and DCLG will be announcing the next steps in due course.

As far as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recovery schemes are concerned, so far around 4,200 applications have been received by local authorities for the repair and renew grant. Local authorities have approved RRG applications to the value of £8.7 million; that was one of the points that the hon. Member for Brent North was keen to have an update on.

We are aware that a number of local authorities have expressed concerns about meeting the 31 March 2015 deadline for RRG claims, and we are doing everything we can to resolve the situation and to provide some flexibility for them. As we speak, discussions are still ongoing about extending this deadline, and we expect to notify local authorities imminently. We are keen that as many eligible people as possible benefit from that grant. All applications for the farming recovery fund were processed last year, with a total value of £5.14 million.

I hope I have reassured hon. Members about the implementation of Flood Re and the question of flood insurance. I understand the aspiration across the House to explore how to make best use of revenue and capital funding to deliver better outcomes for communities, people and their property, and those discussions will continue. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, some of those questions will have to remain for the next spending review period, but as she rightly said, the Committee has put down a marker and I am certainly keen to explore ways in which we can respond. Important principles exist to ensure that we have capital invested in infrastructure and that we maintain those necessary fiscal controls on revenue spending; nevertheless, I understand the point the Committee made.

Reference was made to the importance of agricultural schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes talked about support for partners coming together. That is a process to be led at local level—as he said, those partnerships are emerging—but I am happy to explore with him the support we might be able to offer and what the best approach might be.

Despite the exceptional weather experienced last winter, the impacts were significantly less than previous events of similar magnitude. For example, our existing flood defences protected some 1.4 million properties and more than 2,500 sq km of farmland from flooding. That reinforces the importance of continuing our investment in flood defence schemes and forecasting capability.

The hon. Member for Brent North talked about the Pitt review. Some of its recommendations are for Government, but others are for agencies and bodies such as local authorities. Some are ongoing—they are not the sort of thing we can just deliver on and then tick off; they have to be constantly examined and updated. However, the Government have moved forward on those recommendations. Had we been debating this subject at this point last year, the hon. Gentleman could rightly have raised the question of sustainable drainage systems, but we have now moved forward on SUDS, as he is aware, and we are working with our colleagues at DCLG on a regime to implement that scheme. That was therefore an important recommendation.

Some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have raised in previous debates the question of the statutory responsibility for fire and rescue services, an issue of particular concern to them. The advice of the chief adviser at DCLG, which we have taken, is that the suggested approach is not appropriate. However, the Pitt review recommended that we consider that suggestion in detail, and we did.

[Barry Gardiner]

It is good that there has been progress on some of the other 46 recommendations of the review that had not been addressed before. Will the Minister agree to report back on that progress? One problem with knowing what has been going on is that in 2012, the Government announced that they would not provide further updates on progress with the Pitt review. It would help if that progress report was updated.

Before he closes, will the Minister simply answer my question about the increase in the number of properties at significant and high risk? Does he think that the reduction of 5%, which the Government have talked about, in respect of the lowest-risk properties is a proper use of capital expenditure?

[Dan Rogerson]

As I have sought to set out, our pipeline of projects, which is informed by calculations of the sort the hon. Gentleman mentions, will go a long way to helping communities, people and businesses around the country, and to meeting the demands and appropriate needs of local authorities, Members and individuals in their areas. I am happy, as always, to look at and review both the projects and the underlying assumptions.

We have also said that the pipeline gives an indication of which projects have met the test for funding so far. Some projects may change during the six-year period as other information emerges or local circumstances change, and as other sources of partnership funding come forward that people might want to integrate into such a scheme. Other projects that have not yet provided the level of detail needed to be in a scheme may move into that six-year programme. In setting out that programme, we have done more than any previous Government to give people confidence that we are serious about investing to keep them safe for the future.

Alongside that, we have one of the best forecasting and warning systems in the world and we are investing more in such computing power. Although we cannot control the weather and cannot stop flooding altogether, we are determined to reduce the risk further and to provide better protection for people’s homes and for farms and businesses across the country. We have acted on the lessons learned from last winter and have put in place numerous measures to improve response capability at all levels. With local partners at the helm of flood preparedness, coupled with the Government’s record level of investment in flood defences, we will be better equipped to deal with the risk of flooding this winter and beyond.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

This is the first time a Government have ever laid out a six-year forward capital spend proposal. It is an increase in real terms on the figure this Parliament, which in turn was an increase in real terms from the previous Parliament. We are also committing an additional £35 million for maintenance this year and next, which the Environment Agency has said will do the job of maintaining our defences.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that of the 1,400 schemes she has talked about, 1,119 are only partly funded and rely on 80% unsecured partnership funding and a 10% efficiency saving that nobody has yet identified? In fact, only 97 of those 1,400 schemes are both new and fully funded. She says that 300,000 households will have reduced flood risk, but this figure is the result of homes going from the category of “low risk” to that of “very low risk”, while the number of homes at “significant” and “high” risk of flooding will go up by 80,000 in the next six years. Will she also confirm that in order to get these figures to add up for the Treasury, she has had to value human life at zero?

[Mr Speaker]

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I always feel that I am on the receiving end of a learned academic treatise, but a question would on the whole be preferred.

Plastic Bags

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), for all the work she has done on this issue, for her Committee’s excellent analysis and for her excellent presentation of it.

Simply put, the Government should not have a stand-alone policy on plastic bags. Reducing their use must be part of a coherent waste management strategy with a focus on preventing plastic from entering the waste stream and reducing litter. There should be no disagreement on that in the House, but, of course, one of the Minister’s first acts on entering the Department was to announce in his infamous letter that there would be an abandonment of waste management by Government.

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

The hon. Gentleman and I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee together, and we discussed these matters informally and formally. However, I ask him to refer to what I actually said in my letter, which is that there are some areas of policy that have been taken forward, and it will now be up to industry and wider society to respond, and others that we will continue to conduct research on and get behind. To say that my letter said we were abandoning waste policy is not an entirely fair characterisation.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister pleads in his own defence, and I will let the industry judge for itself, but the industry has been clear that it was deeply unhelpful of the Department to announce that the Government no longer saw fit to take part in some aspects of waste management and that it was down to the industry just to get on with things.

The rationale behind the Government’s position was that they should not intervene in areas where there was no market failure. The problem, however, is that I happen to believe that 2,309 items of plastic per kilometre on UK beaches constitute market failure. The remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the levels of plastic litter experienced around the UK coastline bear witness to that. They are disgusting, but they are also a warning about the level of plastic that has not washed up on our beaches and that is still floating out at sea. The Government have just not thought through waste management in this respect. If they had, they would have listened to the industry and delivered a workable policy programme. They have not done that.

What percentage reduction in plastic bag use do the Government expect will be achieved as a result of their policy by 2020? Will it be as much as in Wales, where there is a simple charging system without all the loopholes and caveats the Government have added?

When does the Minister think that a biodegradable plastic bag will fulfil the criteria for exemption from the single-use plastic bag charging policy? My hon. Friend made an incontrovertible and admirable point: where else in Government policy does one create in law an exemption for something that does not exist? It really beggars belief.

The Committee’s report stated:

“The policy around the exemption for biodegradable bags appears rushed and taken before reviewing existing evidence or considering the concerns of all stakeholders.”

If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend’s Committee let the Government off lightly by putting it so delicately.

The report continues:

“It appears to us that Defra is trying to use innovation to justify a rushed and flawed policy proposal to allow an exemption for biodegradable bags.”

The question we must ask is why. Can the Minister give a reasoned explanation— because there is certainly not one in the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report—of why the Department has gone into such contortions to do that? The waste management industry and environmental scientists are clear about the fact that the exemption is absurd. The British Plastics Federation has made it clear that DEFRA made the decision on the exemption before consulting manufacturers. British Polythene Industries opposed the exemption and stated that it would increase the use of plastic bags and undermine recycling targets. What progress has been made as part of the small business research initiative on biodegradable bags?

Objections to the policy on environmental grounds have been as emphatic as the industry’s. A professor of marine biology and adviser to DEFRA told the Environmental Audit Committee that he was surprised by the proposals to exempt biodegradable bags. His research found that approximately 98% of plastics, including so-called biodegradable plastics, remained after 40 weeks, in part because of a lack of light reaching the bags under water. There is no such thing as a biodegradable plastic bag; the plastic just degrades into smaller pieces that are more easily ingested by marine life. That means that they are more easily able to contaminate and pollute the marine environment.

Quantities of litter on UK beaches have more than doubled since 1994, according to the Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch survey, which is the source for the figure of 2,309 items per kilometre found in 2013. Last year English beaches had, on average, 45 plastic bags per kilometre, an increase of just over 20% since 1996. Let us consider the impact of that on wildlife. The northern fulmar does not regurgitate plastic, but accumulates it in its stomach. Data collected between 2007 and 2011 show that 95% of fulmars in the North sea had plastic in their stomach—62% exceeding legal limits.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report states:

“Several key impacts of the policy (e.g. reduced disamenity impact of litter; reduced damage to marine life) are difficult to measure in quantitative and monetary terms.”

Indeed they are, but that does not mean they are not real. They are what classical economics regards as externalities, and, as so often with the present Government, externalities are ascribed a nil value. That is the problem. The Government have chosen to discount the importance of litter and, significantly, of damage to marine life, because it is too difficult to work out what those things cost. That is the wrong approach. Litter ruins neighbourhoods; plastic waste damages entire marine ecosystems.

The waste management industry, perhaps more than any other, can produce growth that increases the productivity of our economy and creates new, skilled jobs. The job creation rate for recycling and reprocessing is significantly higher than that for landfill. It has been estimated that one job in landfill is created for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. By contrast, SITA estimates that job creation per 1,000 tonnes of waste for recycling ranges from 0.75 to as many as 40 jobs, depending on the material. That is between 38 and 2,000 jobs for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. That is the industry on its own, making an immensely valuable contribution to jobs and growth; but it is even more important as a driver of the wider economy.

[Joan Walley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread concern that the Government are stepping back from supporting the waste management sector, and offering only a limited programme of waste prevention activities? There are opportunities for innovation and growth in jobs, but the sector is not being supported by the Government to the extent it should be.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am happy that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because, as on most such occasions, she is right. She will have heard the Minister giving his justification for the Government’s approach to the waste management industry and the issue of the circular economy. The point that she and I are trying to make is that the opportunities are huge; and so are the risks of inaction. The Committee warns in paragraph 68 of its report:

“The Government’s waste management strategy needs to be clear, consistent and easy to understand in order to secure reduced carbon emissions, improved rates of recycling and avoid contamination of waste disposal streams. Gains in other areas could be far more important than can be generated by bags alone.”

Again, it is a question of an integrated approach to and coherent policy on waste management. The Committee was right to highlight that; the Government should not have a stand-alone policy on plastic bags. The policy is, frankly, an unscientific mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has pointed out that no genuinely biodegradable plastic bag exists. Paragraph 33 of the Government’s response to the report states that they are

“aware of the concerns regarding contamination of the recycling stream with biodegradable plastics and are addressing this with feasibility studies”.

I should be grateful if the Minister would update us about the progress of those feasibility studies.

In places the Government’s response is incoherent. Paragraph 24 states that

“the Government intends to require retailers to publicise the number of bags sold and how the proceeds of the charge have been spent.”

That is from a Government who are anti-regulation; but three paragraphs on, paragraph 27 states:

“Requiring businesses to report specifically on the VAT on plastic bags would also introduce additional administrative burden for those firms involved.”

Goodness me; within three paragraphs the Government contradict themselves on whether regulation on plastic bags is appropriate or burdensome for business. The policy is incoherent, and an incoherent response has been given to a coherent report.

It is alarming that the policy has been allowed to get so far when Government officials and advisers express serious concerns about the impact on the marine environment, in particular. If the Government do not abandon the absurd parts of this policy and adopt the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation for a simple universal charge that will reduce plastic waste and litter as part of a wider, comprehensive and coherent waste-management strategy, I assure the House that the next Labour Government will. It is an essential component of a resource management strategy worthy of the name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

Some organisations have taken that on. I have met some of them and they have given evidence to the Committee. Other organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, have taken a different position. It is important to look at the implementation of the charge. The huge majority of the bags will be distributed by retailers who will be covered by the charge. We can continue to examine how the exemption operates post-implementation. The smaller retailers who want to make a charge can do so. They are exempt from the compulsion to do so and the reporting of that, which will be an obligation on those who are covered by the charge.

[Barry Gardiner]

If small retailers charge 5p for a bag but are exempt, that will presumably constitute part of their revenue stream and they will have to declare VAT on that element of their income, whereas those who are not exempt will be exempt from declaring VAT. The exemptions are working directly counter to each other. Is that correct?

[Dan Rogerson]

I have been having discussions with some of the organisations representing smaller retailers. Some small businesses have already chosen to introduce a charge voluntarily in local areas. That is a decision for them. We are talking about the difference between compulsion and an option to do so. When smaller retailers have chosen to introduce a charge voluntarily or as part of their business model, and to use the money for good causes, which is what we are expecting larger retailers to do, that will be a matter for them to decide. I want to talk about how we expect that money to be used because that is important and there have been discussions about that outwith this place.

As in Wales and Scotland, we hope and expect that retailers will give the proceeds of the charge to good causes. The Climate Change Act 2008 does not give the Government the power to determine what retailers do with the proceeds of the charge. We will require retailers to report to the Government the number of bags they give out, the amount raised by the charge and what they do with the proceeds. We will then make that information public. We expect that pressure from customers will ensure that the net proceeds, when reasonable costs have been deducted, will go to good causes. Many large retailers have already stated that they will give the proceeds to charities and publish details on their websites.

[Barry Gardiner]

Given that retailers will be obliged to publish how many bags they have given out and how they have given the money from those bags to charitable causes, is it correct that it will be simple for anyone to calculate how much VAT will be related to the income derived from those bags? It will be a straight 20% to the Government, so why in paragraph 27 of their response to the Committee do they say that that will be a large additional burden on business?

[Dan Rogerson]

Just for clarification, when the hon. Gentleman says burden on business, is he talking about small businesses that we are exempting from the charge?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am referring to paragraph 27, which states:

“Requiring businesses to report specifically on the VAT on plastic bags would also introduce additional administrative burden for those firms involved.”

For that reason, the Government did not propose to follow the Committee’s recommendation to report on the VAT and to hypothecate that for the monitoring and effectiveness of the scheme. The excuse given by the Government for not doing so is that it would pose an additional burden on business, but the Minister has just told us that the business will have to report on the number of bags sold and the proceeds of that charge. Given that all one has to do is divide the proceeds of the charge by five, how is it that the Government use the excuse of that being an additional burden on business to avoid the Committee’s conclusions? It is simply a case of dividing by five the burden that has already been placed on them to report on the proceeds.

[Dan Rogerson]

The reporting system will require retailers to report on the VAT that is paid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I was covering the importance of where the money goes and our ability to state our expectations of that. As the Chair of Committee said in her opening remarks, the provisions that allow us to do that without requiring primary legislation are in the Act. That is the area in which we work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

With regard to the regulations on the scheme and the explanation of how the scheme will operate, we will be tabling the regulations in December. One of the hon. Lady’s other questions was about the timetable for implementation. It is still our intention to table the regulations by the end of this year and to have the charge come into operation in October next year. That timetable still remains and, obviously, we will have the opportunity to explore the operation of the system in Committee. Should the hon. Lady be a member of that Committee, we could debate any further questions she has, but the reporting of how that money is to be spent will come to the Government, because retailers will have to do it and make it public. I would be very surprised if companies that were taking the charge in and giving it to good causes did not wish to demonstrate clearly to their customers the purpose to which the money was being put. It would be rather strange for them to give money to good causes—I am sure many of those companies are altruistic—and not tell the public about the good causes to which they are giving money. We have seen other schemes in supermarkets in which, as part of their corporate-social responsibility, they demonstrate how they are supporting community activities in the local area.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I would like to make a little progress, if I may.

It is not only charities that stand to gain from the charge, because when littered, carrier bags cost all of us. They cost taxpayers in England around £10 million every year in clean-up costs. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady mentioned biodegradability—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, who is concerned about the marine environment, also mentioned it. The Government’s position is that there will always be a need for some plastic bags. People may forget their reusable bags or they may require a new bag to avoid contamination if they are buying raw meat. At the same time, we should aim to reduce the visual impact and the harm to wildlife if those bags go on to be littered. A bag that biodegrades into harmless products is clearly more desirable. That is why we are working with industry and academic experts to review existing standards and to set a suitably robust standard for biodegradable bags. Bags that meet that standard will be exempt from the charge.

Hon. Members have referred to bags that are already on the market and the challenges we face. Bags biodegrade in different circumstances in different environments. Those circumstances include hedgerows in the countryside and the marine environment, which we have talked about. We will need to be satisfied that there is a product that is biodegradable in the multiple circumstances in which it may be littered or find itself disposed of.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister is being very generous giving way—I do like him so much and I find it difficult to be quite so difficult with him. He is absolutely right that, depending on the light available, plastics will degrade in differential ways, but standards could be set to allow bags to be used in different circumstances and different contexts. Is he seriously saying that, if someone lives or does their shopping within a mile of the seaside, they will not be able to get hold of a particular plastic bag, whereas if someone lives in Birmingham, that bag might be available to them? Context-specific measures cannot be applied in legislation in that way. We require a bag that does not just break down into small particles, because those small particles are ingested by birds, as well as fish and other marine organisms, and that is a key problem. Unless he can come up with an answer to that critical point, the exemption for supposedly biodegradable bags really does not wash.

[Dan Rogerson]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong to have different types of bag that biodegrade in different circumstances and then allow them to be sold in particular places—we are absolutely not doing that. We are talking about a product that meets a standard that covers that range of circumstances. That is the super-biodegradability aspiration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

Obviously, as I said, the hon. Lady will be able to study the detail of the regulation when it is tabled. The intention behind signalling the desirability of a product that meets the criteria is that that is an important and perfectly reasonable thing to do to stimulate investment in innovation. The hon. Member for Brent North has pointed out that we have studies under way, as is referred to in our response, first, on materials, and secondly on processes for reprocessing bags, to satisfy concerns in that regard. We have had the initial work back. We will review it and consider whether we want to take anything further forward.

[Barry Gardiner]

On a point of clarification—

[Dan Rogerson]

I want to make some progress and come to some of the other issues raised in the debate.

The Chair of the Committee was right to point out that, along with such a product, we need a standard to measure it and ensure that it is suitable. However, we would not be doing this at all if we were signalling that in no circumstances would such a product ever be exempt. The whole point of extending that possibility is to stimulate the discussion and innovation. That is the reason behind that aspect of the policy.

The hon. Lady also referred, as did her Committee, to paper bags. We are focusing the charge on plastic bags as part of a targeted and proportionate approach. Plastic carrier bags take the longest to degrade in the natural environment, can harm wildlife, as hon. Members pointed out, and are extremely visible in the environment because they take so long to degrade. Paper bags make up less than 0.1% of the bags distributed in the UK by the seven major supermarkets and can also biodegrade naturally in the open air. Of course, paper bags should still be reused a number of times before being recycled and should never be littered. We have analysed their life cycle—this addresses the carbon problem that the Chair of the Committee was keen to point out—but, because they make up such a small part of the overall number of bags used, we do not think that that will be significant, although they do have a part to play, for the reasons I have set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The assumption, from what the hon. Lady is saying, is that there might be a massive switch to paper bags and that therefore some of the littering issues and so on might continue even if biodegradability and the use of oil and so on—separate questions—are taken aside. I suggest that retailers, who are used to other forms of the policy in the Welsh jurisdiction, will make the charge part of the operation of their businesses. That was another of her questions—she mentioned working with retailers. We have had regular meetings with the British Retail Consortium and others. The fact that a system has been introduced in other jurisdictions means—the vast majority of those businesses operate across those boundaries—that retailers understand how such a system can work and will be prepared for it.

The hon. Lady mentioned the European Union. We are very pleased that the European Union has reached agreement on a robust plan for tackling the blight of plastic bag pollution, but with each member state doing what works best in its own circumstances. The negotiating position adopted by the United Kingdom Government was to safeguard that flexibility, so that member states can take systems forward in the way that is most suitable in their jurisdiction. That was at the heart of what we were trying to do.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister assure the House that, when the Government said, quite properly, that they were going to pursue a charge on plastic bags, a company did not come to them and say, “Hold on a second. We think that we have a product that’s going to be developed that will go a substantial way towards meeting some of the problems with plastic bags, so can you tailor-make an exemption for us”? I ask that because it would be deeply concerning if there were any suggestion that the Government were passing legislation simply to facilitate a company bringing a product to market in that way. It would be good for the Minister to clear the air and say that that is definitely not the case.

[Dan Rogerson]

As the hon. Gentleman may well be aware, the European Commission is committed to further research on oxo-biodegradable bags, and we will always use robust scientific evidence to inform our decisions. As I set out in our discussion about how things biodegrade in different environments, whether the marine environment or another environment, and the standards that we are seeking to set for our domestic policy, we are very clear that we would have a high barrier for any product to overcome to satisfy the exemption. This is not about taking one technology and saying, “We think that’s fine. We’ll make an exemption for it.” It is about saying, “We want a new sort of product that will overcome a high barrier.”

[Barry Gardiner]

I want to give the Minister the opportunity to deny categorically that, when the policy against plastic bags was being put forward, a specific company came to the Government and lobbied and got the exemption put into the legislation. I understand what he is saying about standards and the benchmark—when standards are in place, they apply to everyone—but it is really important that the Minister stands up in the House and says, “No. The exemptions that we have put into this legislation are not a result of lobbying by a specific company that came to us once this process was under way.”

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman has been a Minister, so he knows that decisions that are taken are subject to a process of discussion across Government, across all Departments. I can certainly say that the policy that we have taken forward is not to suit any particular company or any particular technology. It is to meet the obligation to improve environmental outcomes and to deal with the issues of litter, and to generate an income stream for good causes, which we have discussed. That is the focus of the policy.

In concluding my remarks, I thank hon. Members for their close interest in the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

May I say first that the Minister has been most gracious in allowing so many interventions? Perhaps that was more a function of the attendance at the debate, but it was very helpful in flushing out some of the issues.

We have had a very wide-ranging debate. I am particularly pleased to have heard the interventions from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who I know takes marine pollution concerns seriously. The contributions certainly from our Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brent North, and from the Minister have helped us perhaps not always to clarify, but certainly to be better informed.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Joan Walley]

I am not sure whether I am able to take interventions in the summing-up. I shall take guidance on that from you, Mrs Brooke.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I will allow a brief intervention. I suspect that that will not be the case, but we do have time on our side, but this must be a one and only, not an inquisition.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful, Mrs Brooke. Was the Chair of the Select Committee concerned, as I was, not to hear an absolute, categorical denial from the Minister that the exemption was precipitated by a specific intervention from a specific company?

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend any specific issues he has on behalf of his constituency. The statement of principles, which exists with the insurance industry, is still in operation up until the implementation of Flood Re. We of course have regular discussions with the industry to ensure that people are being offered the flood insurance they need.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), which the Minister failed to give, is £403,000 out of the £10 million that the Government promised—less than 5%. That applied at the beginning of the summer recess. Tomorrow is 31 October, the day on which the Government promised that all the 890 flood defences damaged last year and in need of urgent repair would have that work completed. Will the Minister assure us that the 49% of those repairs that had not been completed by last month will be finished by tomorrow, as promised? The people at risk from those 437 unfinished schemes would really like to know.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that work has continued since that reference point in September. The vast majority of those schemes will be completed by the end of the month, and temporary defences are in place to protect any communities where the work is still ongoing into November. The vast majority will be completed by the end of this month.

National Pollinator Strategy

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. She spoke with eminent good sense and with what I would characterise as quiet passion. Other Members who have contributed to this debate have made really telling points. I am talking about my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), and for Hendon (Dr Offord) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). It has been an excellent debate.

When I was a child, my mother used to pay me half a crown to wash her car each week—you, Mr Speaker, will probably remember it as 12 and a half pence, as half a crown is probably before your time. I used to wash every bit of the car, except for one particular piece at the front, which was about 1 foot square. I kept that as a before and after shot to show my mother what a good job I had done, and I chose that particular spot at the front of the car because it was always covered in thousands of dead insects.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Either the hon. Gentleman’s mother was a notably frugal custodian of the family purse, or, alternatively, the hon. Gentleman is some years older than me. Possibly, the House might conclude, that both of those statements are true.

[Barry Gardiner]

My mother was certainly very frugal, but she did need her car washing every week, and it was, every week, covered in dead insects. Sadly, the cars are no longer covered in thousands of dead insects. We have cleaner cars today, but the insects are gone.

[Mr Heath]

I just wanted to respond to Mr Speaker’s interjection by saying that when I was a boy, half a crown would buy an entire gallon of Somerset cider.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is indicating only how much older he is than I am, and also perhaps that he had more of a penchant for things that my mother certainly would not have allowed me. I was not in any way allowed half a gallon of Somerset cider; half a pint of carrot juice was more like it.

As the insects have disappeared, so have the birds. As the insects continue to disappear, so will the yield from our crops.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Did my hon. Friend see the beautiful article by Caitlin Moran in The Times last Saturday in which she eloquently begged to have bird song back again? She was making the same point as my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know my penchant for whistling around the place, emulating those very birds he wants to return.

The impact on our crops of the insects continuing to disappear has been calculated at more than £600 million a year. Some insecticides that farmers use to increase yield kill not only the insects that destroy the crops, but those that pollinate them. I would welcome a pollinator strategy from the Government—we have a draft strategy—if it is understood that the decline in the ecosystem services that pollinators provide cannot be dealt with unless that is done on an ecosystem-wide basis.

Popular though the campaign may be, this is not just all about the bees, as Members have said. Yes, colony collapse disorder is serious and, yes, the varroa mite is a problem, as are the acarine mite and nosema apis, and fungal diseases such as chalkbrood and stonebrood, but the fundamental problems that have resulted in the decline of pollinators across the board are much more plain and simple. Since the 1930s, 97% of our wild flower meadows have been lost. If one of the fundamental habitats providing a food source to pollinators is taken away, is it any wonder that we see a decline in butterflies, moths, beetles and other pollinators?

I congratulate the whole NGO coalition, especially Buglife and Friends of the Earth, on campaigning extensively for a national pollinator strategy. The NGOs understand this, as does the Environmental Audit Committee in its excellent report. They have spoken clearly about how changes in land management over the past century represent one of the major causes of pollinator loss. The Government should do more than pay them lip service, as they did in their response to the Select Committee’s report. Many of the groups have a larger membership than all the political parties represented in the Chamber put together, and their bee campaigns have involved hundreds of thousands of people devoting their time for our natural environment. That is marvellous, so the Government need to respond positively.

The Government have the power to halt the decline of our natural environment. Delivering a pollinator strategy is a critical part of that, so we should ask what this Government’s record has been. They opposed the European ban on neonicotinoids and supported efforts to undermine it. They said that a ban could cripple the economy, thus ignoring the direct value of pollination services to UK farmers and the natural environment. That was proof, if anyone still needed it, that for this Government the environment and the economy are always seen as being in conflict, although they are not. The Government’s decision to withdraw from a pan-European research project on honey bee decline was further evidence of their allergy to sound science.

They failed to include pollinator-specific measures in their so-called greening of agricultural subsidy in the CAP.

There seems to be a dangerous idea—clung to by some in the Government—that they have to sacrifice our environment and well-being for the sake of achieving short-term economic growth. In fact, economists now tell us that economic growth depends upon natural capital. This Government have acted with absolute consistency against the science and failed to adopt a fully ecosystem-based way of working that displays the true value of the natural capital upon which all growth depends. There are three key decisions that they could have taken: the decision to adopt a science-based policy on insecticides; the decision to acquire new evidence on pollinator decline; and the decision to create space for nature in precisely the way that John Lawton set out in his report.

We need to embrace a new, restorative approach that rebuilds nature and creates a more resilient natural environment for the benefit of wildlife and ourselves. We need coherent ecological networks if we are to conserve wildlife and landscapes that have become fragmented as a result of human activity. An ecological network must be comprehensive enough to hold a suite of high-quality sites that collectively contain the diversity and amount of habitat needed to support species. There must be ecological connections between those sites to enable species—or, in the case of plants, their genes—to move.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and apologise for being unable to attend the debate from the start because of other duties. When I was Secretary of State, we established “Making space for nature”, and I went with John Lawton to parts of the west midlands to create those important areas. The question is one of joining up to get the landscape scale, and I agree about that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a clear view of what has been achieved thus far.

[Barry Gardiner]

I respect the right hon. Lady, and she will know that I have always tried to give credit where it is due in the Department. I have given credit to her, in particular, for the way she advanced the natural capital approach. However, I think that there are severe lacunas in the Department’s approach and that we need a much more joined-up approach, in relation to implementing an ecosystem-based way of working in the Department and to joining up across Government. I am sure that is a problem she has faced many times in trying to persuade colleagues across Government. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about the importance of planning, for example, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady will have had her own run-ins with DCLG. I hope that she does not feel that the criticisms I am making are unfair.

The Lawton report summarised the step change that the previous Labour Government made in 2006 when we moved to an ecosystem-based approach, which was essential to mainstreaming our conservation priorities across Government. Sir John’s report spoke about the role of insects in the following way. It states that they are

“the little things that make the world work… vital components of natural food chains (as food for larger organisms and as pollinators for example) and many deliver other vital ecosystem services… It would be unwise to assume we can do without them. Basically, what we are doing is unravelling the fabric of nature. These are local examples on one small part of the planet, of the growing, global ‘biodiversity crisis’.”

In their response to the Environment Audit Committee, the Government basically set out a voluntarist approach that asked the House to trust them. They now have a draft of a pollinator strategy. There is an election coming and people want to be seen to be doing something positive. The 2015 general election is unprecedented. For the first time, people will be able to judge all the major parties on what they have recently achieved in government as well as on what they promise in their manifestos. I am confident that there will be a triumph of experience over hope—what Labour actually achieved in government against what the Conservatives and Lib Dems promised and then failed to deliver.

In 2010, the country did not vote for continuity, except in one thing: Labour’s approach to our environment. The coalition said that it was signed up to Labour’s Climate Change Act 2008. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats committed themselves to delivering on the Lawton report and the national ecosystems assessment that we commissioned on the back of it. They even said that they were committed to the Pitt review that Labour had commissioned after the 2007 floods. Well, we saw last winter what had happened to that.

The Environmental Audit Committee has an in-built majority for the Government parties, but on the basis of its environmental scorecard it looked carefully at what this Government have done and gave them a red card on biodiversity. Under this Government, with a Lib Dem responsible for the natural environment, essential work to improve our natural environment has become “green crap”, and we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of a former Secretary of State trawling around the broadcast studios telling all and sundry that he does not believe in half the policies that, as a member of the Cabinet, he was previously responsible for delivering. Unfortunately, this Government’s record on the environment does not lead anyone to trust them. The report, “State of Nature”, and Wildlife and Countryside Link’s report, “Nature Check”, show that the decline in biodiversity is getting worse. That is how we should judge this Minister’s party when it promises to give us a legal target for biodiversity. The Minister must accept that his draft pollinator strategy is neither adequate nor deliverable.

The EAC’s report correctly criticised the Government’s reliance on industry-funded research and voluntary measures. In fact, what it said was damning. It talked of

“excessive reliance on the commercial (rather than scientific) research priorities”—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have no wish to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence or, indeed, the eloquence of his flow, but I feel cautiously optimistic that he is approaching his peroration.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am certainly approaching my conclusion, Mr Speaker—thank you for your guidance.

The Committee talked of

“excessive reliance on the commercial (rather than scientific) research priorities”

of the industry bodies and said that that was

“symptomatic of a loss of DEFRA’s capacity to deliver its environmental protection obligations”.

There is no point in DEFRA’s merely reviewing the research that the agro-chemicals industry decides it wants to carry out when that is not the research that the public need. DEFRA must set out the type of data it requires and the parameters of such research in order to safeguard the environment. A Labour Secretary of State in DEFRA would set out clearly the need to establish baseline data on the health of our pollinator population and use those data to target a series of measures to reverse the declines in our ecosystem services capacity.