Draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Caroline Flint Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I want to check a couple of things with the Minister before he sums up. My understanding of what we are undertaking in Committee and in all the other Committees on which I have sat considering EU-shared parts of regulation being transferred into UK law is that we are ensuring that we do not fall off a cliff edge without any regulations to cover important areas. Whoever was in government, including Labour had it won the 2017 general election, would have had to do exactly the same. In its manifesto, the Labour party made it very clear—it was on all our leaflets—that the British people’s decision to leave the European Union has been settled, or words to that effect. To transpose the legislation into UK law is not a matter of changing any of the regulations, but simply of making sure that they conform to British law, in many respects—and this might seem daft to the public—by inserting “UK” instead of “EU”.
Would the Minister confirm, however, that when we leave the European Union, Parliament will have the opportunity to look at all the regulations covering all areas that this and other Delegated Legislation Committees have discussed, to improve them if we want to, and to set them on a course beyond the EU’s minimum standard for agreement among the 27 member states?
I just wanted to make sure that that is clear for the record. I have found it quite difficult to understand why we have not opposed the statutory instruments in Committee, but we are asked to vote against them on a three-line Whip in deferred Divisions.
The Chair
Just before I call Brendan O’Hara, I will clarify the situation. Apparently, there has been an administrative mix-up. Brendan O’Hara is not a member of the Committee, but he is completely in order to speak and will be recorded as present.
Mr Goodwill
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. What will hopefully be clear is how producers and consumers are well served by passing the instruments, which will make operable retained EU law and domestic legislation on the organisation of agriculture markets to protect standards and our vital farming sector.
The draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make operability changes to a suite of EU regulations laying down marketing standards and related rules for the seven areas: bananas, beef and veal, carcase classification, fruit and vegetables, hops, milk, milk products and spreadable fats, and pigmeat.
The draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make the appropriate amendments to ensure operability for a number of domestic statutory instruments that provide for enforcement of EU rules for marketing standards for fresh horticultural produce, beef and veal labelling, carcase classification, green bananas, olive oil, and hops, as well as for enforcement of the rules of the school milk scheme and for reporting prices of milk and milk products.
The draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make appropriate amendments to EU regulations laying down detailed rules for the three areas of public intervention and aid for private storage, measures to promote agricultural products, and conversion rates for rice. The amendments will ensure that the legislation can operate in a domestic context.
A number of points were raised during the debate, which I will refer to briefly where they are relevant to the measures. The hon. Member for Ipswich seems to still be fighting the last referendum campaign. Although leaving with no deal would deliver for the 52% who voted to leave, I believe that the deal that the Prime Minister has produced is a deal that delivers for everybody and that we should all get behind. He mentioned that it was technical in nature, but the changes are simple; they merely take account of the fact that we will be leaving the European Union. Indeed, when we have left the European Union, we will be able to change things if we want, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley said, because we will be an independent nation. It sounds as if the hon. Member for Ipswich would like to stay in the European Union and not be given the freedoms that the British people voted for.
If we choose to align with EU standards, for example on carcase classification, that will be our choice. Indeed, companies in the UK are well used to exporting to markets around the world and can meet the specifications required in a whole range of countries, so there is no reason why we cannot make changes ourselves, should we wish. I repeat, however, that the amendments do not make changes to the regulation.
The hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned consultation. We had some consultation. We carried out targeted stakeholder engagement on the instruments relating to the CMO in November 2018, engaging stakeholders with a particular interest in the areas covered by the instruments. The stakeholders did not raise any significant concerns, and responses were mostly seeking to clarify issues of policy. We acknowledge the responses from stakeholders and thank them for their comments. Some stakeholders asked DEFRA to consider longer transitional periods for proposed labelling changes. We took their comments on board and provided for longer transitional periods.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley said that the measures before us ensure that we do not fall off a cliff edge. The measures will be relevant whether we have a deal or a no-deal situation and will ensure that business can carry on as usual. The hon. Member for Ipswich was talking about how everything that comes out of Europe seems to be fantastic and how we sign up to everything, but I respectfully remind him that the United Kingdom was held back in a number of areas when we moved on animal welfare. We banned dry sow stalls and veal crates and we took a number of measures on battery hens. We legislated ourselves, but we found that our markets were eroded by others not moving in the same direction. We have been held back in some ways by the EU.
To those who say that the Government will not maintain standards, I say that agricultural food standards in England are already very high, as they are consumer and retailer-led. They often go over and above the current standards set by EU legislation. For example, in the hops sector, brewers have the ability to set the standards they require from their suppliers, and those are often above the minimum EU standards. There is no desire for standards to be lowered for domestic or imported products.
Caroline Flint
The Minister makes an important point about standards. I absolutely agree that in many respects, we have been ahead of the European Union. We could go further, particularly in the transport of livestock, which is another area that could be improved. I take this opportunity to say that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have confirmed that we have not objected to as many SIs as I perceived. We have agreed to hundreds and hundreds of SIs and changes. For the most part, Labour has agreed with the transposition of the regulations, and I wanted to correct the record on that.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the right hon. Lady for those comments. In many ways, the Labour party has not stood in the way of such measures as the ones we are considering. However, the Labour party has stood in the way of the big one: the Brexit deal. Many Labour Members have voted against the deal, meaning that we cannot make progress in moving to the situation where we can make those changes, for which the regulations are the preamble.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute raised the sensible and reasonable point of what happens if we make mistakes. Well, we will fix them. As the changes are small and technical, it is unlikely there will be any major mistakes. As I have said, we have already picked up something where the EU had moved and the numbering of particular articles in the schedule had changed because a few were added at the top. He is absolutely right that under a no-deal situation, the tariff regime would be very difficult for the sheep markets. Tariffs in the region of 40% would be difficult for sheep farmers not only in Scotland, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom, given that we export 30% of our lamb. In particular, the carcases that tend to go on to the EU market are the small hill carcases, such as those produced in his constituency. Once again, the message is clear: vote for the deal so that we will not have a no-deal Brexit and so that we can negotiate a long-term farming agreement.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the plight of hill farmers. I am not a hill farmer—we grow grain on some wonderful lowland areas—but I know from my constituency how tough it is being a hill farmer. The measures in the Agriculture Bill seek to switch aid from direct payments for production or for just being a farmer to public goods. I would argue that the public goods that hill farmers are delivering in terms of the wildlife and the environment—the walls, the hedges, and all those other features—are just the sort of things that Scottish farmers would want to grasp with both hands. It is disappointing that the Scottish Administration are perhaps not taking the same line as we are. When British taxpayers’ money goes into agriculture in the future, we will no longer be able to rely on French farmers burning tyres in the road and marching up the Champs-Élysées to protect farmers’ support. Under the Agriculture Bill regime, if Governments were to suggest cutting agricultural support, people would be writing to their MPs asking about the hedgehogs, the badgers, the bumble bees, the hedges and all those other features—those public goods—that the money will support. I hope that Scotland will be late arrivals at the Agriculture Bill ball, and join in on what I believe will be revolutionary changes to how we support agriculture, in a way that the general public as well as farmers will welcome.
The technical and operability amendments made in the regulations will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of the CMO legislation, which would otherwise be inoperable following our exit from the European Union. They will ensure that we can continue to operate schemes under the regulations for our vital farming sector, and maintain the standards they set, which support confidence in our farmed goods on domestic and international markets. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Market Measures (Marketing Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Market Measures Payment Schemes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.— (Mr Goodwill.)
Draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Market Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Mr Goodwill.)
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Caroline Flint Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a privilege to be called to speak immediately after two important speeches from each of the Front Benches.
I campaigned in favour of Britain remaining a member in 1975. I was too young to vote, but I put leaflets through doors that clearly said we would remain a member of a common market of independent trading states and that nothing about our membership would in any way affect the sovereignty of this Parliament, of which I am proud to be a Member. Unfortunately, in the 40 years since that referendum, we have moved steadily away from that vision, with more and more power given over to Brussels. It is essentially for that reason that I voted against the Maastricht treaty when I was first elected to this place and that I campaigned to leave in the last referendum, in which I was proud to serve on the campaign committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s subsequent commitments in her Florence and Lancaster House speeches on the red lines that the Government cannot breach in our negotiations, and I fought the election on a manifesto making it clear that we are leaving the European Union and that that includes leaving the single market and the customs union.
The many benefits of leaving the European Union are summed up—as we were reminded by the Channel 4 drama on Monday, which had an interesting portrayal of the Secretary of State—by those three words: “Take back control.” There is no doubt that one of the referendum issues that featured in my constituency is immigration, as summed up in the “Taking back control of our borders” White Paper, but I am not opposed to immigration, which has brought great value to this country.
The farmers and horticulturalists I represent in Essex rely on immigrant labour, particularly seasonal labour, and I understand their concern that that should continue. Equally, like most farmers, as the Secretary of State said, the majority of them voted to leave because they embrace the idea of competing in world markets, being outside the CAP and, instead of being subsidised, receiving payment on the basis of their contribution to the public good, which is a far better system.
The ability for my right hon. Friend to set our policy in this area, as there will be such an ability for every other Secretary of State, is one of the great benefits of our gaining our freedom. That is one reason why I am not attracted to the Norway option that some have suggested, and that I understand my right hon. Friend has occasionally thought about. We on the Exiting the European Union Committee discovered in taking evidence from Norwegian parliamentarians that Norway is still bound by European regulations, and of course freedom of movement is one of those requirements.
The vote was essentially about sovereignty. It was a vote to remove the overall jurisdiction of the ECJ. My Select Committee colleagues and I have been to see Michel Barnier several times, and he is very clear that the Prime Minister’s red lines rule out the UK having membership of the European economic area or an agreement similar to those of Norway and Turkey. He told us that the only way in which the UK would not breach its red lines in continuing to have a relationship with the European Union is on the basis of an agreement like the one signed with Canada. He showed us a proposal that not only had a Canada-style trade agreement but had parallel agreements covering security, law and order co-operation and data transfer. Indeed, he set out a scenario almost identical to the one I would have described had I been asked what kind of relationship I wanted with the European Union.
The only problem was that of Northern Ireland and what would happen at the Northern Ireland border. The Prime Minister accepted that that was an insuperable obstacle, and she therefore made the Chequers proposal. I could not support that proposal principally because it maintained the common rulebook, which would mean still having to abide by EU regulations. The Government have shown a willingness to accept further lock-ins, and under amendment (p), tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), we would have to continue to accept EU regulations in employment law.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Amendment (p), which I support, does not say that we should automatically harmonise with the EU as it strengthens protections in these areas. What it says is that, when protections are strengthened, it will come back for this House to debate and vote on those issues. That means Parliament is still taking back control.
Mr Whittingdale
As I understand it, amendment (p) would require us to accept that all existing EU regulations in this area will be maintained. I do not necessarily say that I am in favour of removing any of those regulations, although it is ironic that, when we debated the Maastricht treaty back in 1992, one of the arguments made by the then Conservative Government under John Major was that we had obtained an opt-out from the social chapter and that we would not be bound by the European employment and social regulations. We were told that we had achieved a great prize. Interestingly, of course, it was accepted that we could be part of what then became the European Union without being part of the social chapter. The indivisibility of freedoms is applicable only when it suits the European Union, and not when it does not.
There are many things about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration that I do not like. I do not like the fact that we appear to be signing up to paying out £39 billion without any guarantee on what the future arrangement will look like. I do not like the fact that the ECJ will continue to have a say for a considerable period—some 20 years. I do not like the trading relationship described in the political declaration, which seems to be based on Chequers and its continuing adherence to the common rulebook. However, all those aspects could be dealt with in the subsequent negotiations during the transition period, with the exception of money, which is in the withdrawal agreement. The future arrangements can be discussed during the transition period because they are part of the political declaration, which is not legally binding.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).
Unfortunately, as is so often the case in this House, we have polarised views on both the leave side and the remain side, for which no deal is ever going to be good enough. I rise to speak because my approach to the nation’s decision to leave European Union is to look forward rather than debate the past, to work cross-party where possible, to be constructive rather than destructive, and to seek to unite the country, not divide it further. That is why I support amendment (p), which I have co-sponsored with my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy).
As we debate the conditions under which the UK leaves the European Union, there are legitimate concerns not only about what form the final agreement takes, but about UK Government intentions and the UK’s future direction. I am sure that this amendment is not perfect—we know that all amendments in this debate are not legally binding, and there is much discussion about that—but it does speak to the concerns of many in this House about how we can build on the political declaration and get more assurances, and maybe more certainty, from the Government on how we can protect the rights and standards that affect employment, health and safety and the environment, many of which we have taken for granted during UK membership of the European Union. We want to ensure that they do not decline after the UK leaves. Also, in keeping with the desire for the UK Parliament to regain control, amendment (p) wishes this House to be able to debate and decide on any future improvements to protections or rights implemented by the European Union. The choice would be in our hands; we would debate and vote on those issues.
As this amendment proposes, the UK’s goal post Brexit should be to ensure that workers’ rights do not slip back—that the rights enjoyed by many British employees are protected. Likewise, UK standards on water pollution, pesticides, emissions, energy conservation and carbon reduction must all be protected, with a UK commitment not to walk backwards. Amendment (p) reflects some of the key demands expressed by Labour over the future direction.
For too long the debate in this House has been polarised, with the rhetoric too sharp and many Members on both sides of the House too quick to condemn and too slow to listen. I campaigned for remain. A majority of my voters voted leave, although many voted remain as well. I have always been honest with my leave voters that there will have to be compromise in the final deal that allows us to chart our own future and have more independence over many policy areas—the ability to move beyond the EU and deal with many of the concerns that led to their voting leave. But I have also been up front about recognising that we need a strong partnership with the European Union as we leave, and much of that strength is through co-operation.
I am also honest that life in the EU was never perfect, despite the relationship being close for good reason and despite the fact that it must remain so. We need to talk less about what we are against and more about what we are for, and I believe that our deliberations on the next steps should reflect that. The British people deserve sincere endeavour from this Parliament. The withdrawal agreement is the headline deal—the divorce. It is not the final deal. Trade-related, customs union-related talks will have to be agreed only once the UK leaves.
I welcomed Labour’s support for a transition period, which we demanded back in August 2017. We recognised that the 20-month period to which the Prime Minister signed up would be as important as the past two years have been because there are a wide range of trade and security matters to resolve. We should approach this period positively. It is unreasonable to expect all these matters to have been resolved by this point in the process, but a deal has to be agreed to get to that discussion, and there is still time for talks across this House in order to reach that outcome.
Despite the good work of the EU, I am very proud of the UK having a long history of being at the forefront of high standards when it comes to employment rights and environmental protections. It would be wrong to suggest that the rights that UK citizens take for granted—holidays, maternity leave, minimum pay and our welfare system—exist only because of the European Union. They do not. As a Labour MP, I fundamentally believe they exist because of 100 years of the Labour party and the trade union movement. Despite relatively few periods in office, Labour has made great advances in social change that have become mainstream and to which all parties now lay claim and adopt. These are achievements of this House over many decades, not imports from Brussels or Strasbourg, and not every country in the EU can claim what the UK rightly can.
Chris Bryant
I sympathise with some of that, but the truth is that LGBT rights were quite often forced on Britain by European Court of Justice decisions and European Court of Human Rights decisions, and were not adopted even by a Labour Government. Sometimes we have had to resort to elsewhere.
Caroline Flint
Shame. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who should be a right hon. Friend, but we must not polarise this debate by saying either that the EU is all bad or that the UK does nothing without the EU’s permission.
Our minimum wage is twice that of Greece’s and more than Spain’s, and many EU member states do not have a minimum wage. Statutory maternity pay in the UK is paid for up to 39 weeks, compared with just 16 weeks in France, 16 weeks in Holland and 26 weeks in Ireland. Many people ascribe paid holidays to the EU, but the truth is that it was a Labour Government who signed up to the social chapter that led to that happening, and who added bank holidays on top. With regards to equality, same-sex marriage is legal in just 14 of the 28 member states, so the rights that our lesbian and gay citizens enjoy are in many respects rights derived from decisions of this Parliament, not the European Union.
In the coming weeks and during the transition, it is not too late to adopt a different approach—a less confrontational politics. I want the Government to begin a new dialogue across parties, as they should have done earlier. I want them to consult the Opposition on the negotiations around trade now, and to commit to doing so during the transition period. With 78 days until the UK leaves the European Union, it is too easy to talk about further delay. The task is only impossible if we in this House make it impossible. Extending article 50 would not solve anything, and neither would a second referendum. Our conduct in the coming weeks and months can either seek the best deal and heal divisions, or seek to prevent a deal and divide the country further.
I believe that our path has to be one that brings the nation together—a Brexit based on a reasonable deal that protects the standards and rights that we value and shows generosity of spirit to our European neighbours, but which gets on with the task of getting through this process and dealing with the many issues that we did not face up to during our 40 years in the EU.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
We have heard more than 50 impassioned speeches today from both sides of the House, from Perth to Don Valley, from Cheltenham to Walsall and from Tottenham to Ceredigion. I will not attempt to reference every single speech as I certainly would not do them justice, but it is clear that all Members who have spoken recognise the weight of responsibility on their shoulders—the critical decision that they must make to support their communities.
What also became clear from today’s contributions is that the Prime Minister’s deal has not found consensus in this House. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs began by stating that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Well, this deal is significantly deficient in qualifying for the presumption in this well-known quotation. This deal is simply not good. It does not work for business and industry, it does not work for working people and it does not work for our environment. In fact, as we have been sitting here today, the former head of MI6 is reported to have told the Government that it threatens national security.
The withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration will not ensure the relationship with the European Union needed for UK businesses to operate unhindered post Brexit. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has already stated that
“no business that we have taken evidence from held the view that—from an industry perspective—the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration provide a deal as good as the one we already have with the EU”.
For instance, in the likely backstop scenario, the withdrawal agreement does not provide for a customs union as we enjoy now. As the Institute for Public Policy Research said, it provides for a “bare-bones customs union”, meaning that it does not cover areas such as services, trade or public procurement, and it certainly does not provide for frictionless trade between the UK and the EU. Specifically, it will not address non-tariff barriers such as VAT and product regulation checks, which will have a significant impact on industries such as car production and pharmaceuticals—sectors that are essential to our industrial strategy. Indeed, the Attorney General’s advice confirmed this, stating that, during the backstop,
“Great Britain will no longer be a member of the EU’s Single Market for Goods or the EU’s customs arrangements. This means that any GB goods crossing the border into the EU will be subject to third country checks by Member State authorities”.
Let me turn to the outline political declaration, which is hardly worth the paper it is written on, quite frankly. It includes phrases such as “explore the possibility”. But even if the aspirations listed there were implemented, that would not guarantee frictionless trade. In the best-case scenario, there will be barriers to trade in goods and market access for services will be reduced. That is a fact.
As the IPPR also summarised,
“there will be significant barriers to trade in services between the UK and the EU. UK firms will only have EU market access under host state rules and will lose the benefits of single market treatment…Under these plans, we should therefore expect significant new non-tariff barriers in goods, particularly in heavily regulated sectors such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals.”
Clearly, this is not a good deal for UK business as the Prime Minister keeps alleging. The fact that we are still discussing it today—two months since its inadequacy was revealed before Christmas—rather than negotiating a better deal is harming businesses in the here and now. It takes only a quick Google search to see that businesses up and down the country are already delaying investment, implementing mitigation plans and, in some cases, cutting jobs and moving operations.
Significant manufacturers such as Bombardier, Rolls-Royce and Cobham have applied to come under the jurisdiction of regulators in other EU countries, and this week Aston Martin triggered its contingency plans—at an accumulating cost, according to its chief executive. Indeed, as we have been sat here today, Honda has announced that it is doing the same and implementing its contingency plans.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will quote some of the business organisations that have cautiously welcomed the Prime Minister’s deal, but I gently say to him that they are doing so with a gun held to their head. They have been presented with a false choice between this deal or no deal by a Government who are recklessly threatening the worst-case scenario and attempting to run down the clock. In fact, it is economic sabotage.
The will of this House has been clearly expressed. There is virtually no support for no deal, and it would therefore be unthinkable for the Prime Minister to proceed down that road. Indeed, according to media reports this morning, even the Secretary of State himself agrees with this principle. If this is true, political posturing in the media is simply not good enough. Will he assure businesses today that the prospect of no deal will be taken off the table?
This unambitious deal will not only hinder the UK in terms of trade, but risk a bonfire of the regulations that ensure that high standards are maintained. Members across the House will recognise the strength of feeling that our constituents have on Brexit. However, I can assure you, Mr Speaker—we have heard from many Members on this issue today—that none of them voted for the watering down of workers’ hard-won rights after we leave the EU. Unfortunately, however, despite assurances from the Prime Minister that
“existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law”,
the TUC’s verdict is that the deal
“doesn’t guarantee jobs or rights at work into the future.”
Indeed, Thompsons Solicitors has stated that the so-called non-regression clause in the political declaration will be “ineffective” in maintaining workers’ rights, and the IPPR has stated that it is not sufficient to maintain current protections, individuals cannot even bring about proceedings and if the EU raises standards, the UK is permitted to simply fall behind.
Indeed, attempting to use all parliamentary levers to mitigate against—
Caroline Flint
Those of us who have put our names to amendment (p) realise that it is not perfect and that, like all other amendments, it is not legally binding. However, does my hon. Friend agree that whatever happens next Tuesday, if there is a willingness, we can open up discussion about how we can ensure, going forward, that we can, in law, see a way to enshrine the protection of these workers’ rights, and would she be willing to engage in such dialogue?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. I can certainly state that the sentiment behind the amendment that she and various colleagues have tabled is to bolster workers’ rights and make sure that our workers’ rights in the UK do not fall behind those in the EU.
Climate Change and Flooding
Caroline Flint Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely agree. It seemed that money was no object in the short-term clear-up exercise, although there were delays in people getting the money promised to them. The Government are trying to speed up that process this time, by giving the money to local authorities, but council leaders have raised concerns that they simply do not have the resources and staff for that administration. I hope the Environment Secretary will provide some clarity on that.
Last week, the Environment Secretary was still assuring the people of Cumbria that the Government would learn the lessons, and the Prime Minister, on a fleeting visit up north, told them:
“After every flood, the thing to do is sit down, look at the money you are spending, look at what you are building, look at what you are planning to build in the future and ask: ‘Is it enough?’”
I am not convinced that it is enough. In June, the Committee on Climate Change gave flood adaptation a double-red warning, and the Environmental Audit Committee gave the Government a red card for climate adaptation. The Prime Minister did not have to wait for the floods to ask, “Are we doing enough?” The experts had already provided the evidence that we were not.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
On learning the lessons, is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that about half of the Chancellor’s fast-track zones to build houses are on floodplains? It is estimated that 9,000 new houses built on these floodplains might not be insurable because of the risk of flooding.
Kerry McCarthy
That is certainly an issue. Cockermouth has had planning permission approved for new houses, yet we have seen from the recent floods that the defences, which people thought were safe enough to withstand what was described in 2009 as a once in a lifetime or a once in a century event, were not good enough. The Government need to reassure me, therefore, that any defences around new housing in those areas would be sufficient to protect people and deal with the issue of insurance.
Elizabeth Truss
I just want to answer the point raised by Opposition Members about the spending in recent years. Following the 2013-14 floods, we put in an extra £270 million to repair and rebuild the defences that were destroyed. That is the money that Opposition Members are talking about, but even if we take account of that extra funding, which rebuilt and repaired defences after the winter floods, we are still spending more in real terms in this Parliament on flood defences, and we are laying it out in a six-year programme for the first time ever. When Labour was in power it never laid out plans for more than one year at a time, whereas we are laying out a six-year plan.
Caroline Flint
When the Chancellor was pulling together his fast-track zones for housing, whereby half the houses are going to be built on floodplain areas, did the Secretary of State have sight of that policy? Did she comment on it? If not, why not?
Elizabeth Truss
I will be very clear with the right hon. Lady: the Environment Agency is part of the planning process and it does not allow house building on floodplain areas—that is part of the planning process.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right to say that Somerset Rivers Authority, which is now established, forms a model that we can use in other parts of the country. It gives local people, who understand the area and the local catchment, the power to make decisions—
Elizabeth Truss
I have already given way to the right hon. Lady once and I want to make progress, in order to give the many constituency MPs who are part of the debate an opportunity to speak.
I want to respond to the Opposition’s point about local farmers, some of whom I met yesterday. We are helping them to get their land sorted out, as much of it is covered with rubble. We are putting in place a special scheme to help farmers, which will be open from this Friday, and we are also seeing what we can do to prioritise basic farm payments for the worst affected farmers.
I have talked about our £2.3 billion programme—this is the first time ever that a Government have laid out their future flood defence spending. The private sector partnership money that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has been talking about is in addition to the real-terms increase—extra money so that even more flood defence schemes can go ahead. We have already secured £250 million of that money and we have a further £350 million earmarked. We are only six months into the scheme. Let us remember what happened between 2005 and 2010: only £13 million was raised. We raised £134 million in the last Parliament—10 times that raised under the previous Government.
The money we are putting in represents real flood defences across the country. It means that in Boston we are building a new £90 million barrier; in Rossall, Lancashire, we are investing £63 million for a new 2 km sea wall; in Exeter, we are investing £30 million in new flood defences; and on the Thames we are investing £220 million in a 17 km flood relief channel. I am pleased to say that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol East we will invest £1 million in a scheme for Brislington, and that in Stockton North we are investing £8 million in a scheme at Port Clarence and Greatham South. What this money—this real-terms increase in spending—means is real protection for real families and real businesses across the country, in addition to protection for 420,000 acres of farmland.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), although it is saddening how often during the past few years so many Conservative Members have had to stand up to speak about the terrible floods that have impacted on the communities they represent. It would be remiss of us if our discussion did not begin with a thought for the people of Cumbria and for others across the UK who are facing a second flooding in just six years, many of whom will spend Christmas away from their own homes.
In its latest report on adaptation progress, the Committee on Climate Change rated planning for residual flood risk to existing properties at red, both in terms of the plans in place and actual progress. As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admitted during her response last week, the models that we currently use need updating. I will make two points about that.
First, many people are sick and tired of being told that the floods that have wrecked their homes are one-in-100-year events, given that the severe floods we have seen during the past 10 years suggest that such erratic weather will be far more frequent than once every century. If the Government and all of us are to learn anything from that—I hope we can work on a cross-party basis on these issues—it is that the patterns of weather in the past century are a poor guide to future risk, so we must ensure that the new models we need take that into account or the public will gain false comfort about their own security.
Secondly, the Government must work across Departments. It is very worrying that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs failed to answer what I thought was a very common-sense question: “Have you had a discussion with the Chancellor about the zones that Ministers are fast-tracking for housing development?” I believe we need more homes—do not get me wrong on that—but we really must have a joined-up policy across the Government if we are to make progress both on housing and on limiting the risk to our communities. I found it very worrying that she failed to answer that question, but perhaps the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will return to that point in her summing up. On that area, as on climate change, if we can find a better way to work together—this is not to say there should not be scrutiny—I know that Labour Members would want to work not only to make the future better, more secure and brighter for ourselves, but to show leadership in the world.
That brings me to Paris. Many positive things have come out of the Paris agreement. Whatever the importance of using “should” rather than “shall” or “shall” rather than “should”, we still have an unprecedented, universally binding deal that aims to limit the temperature rise to beneath 2 °C degrees and to make efforts to stay below a 1.5 °C rise, which is very welcome. Progress has been impressive. I have to commend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary for her work on this; I must also commend our French colleagues, who despite everything that has happened in France recently, managed to hold a vital conference for the world and to produce such a good result.
As we stand, however, the UK does not have the policies in place to deliver either the UK’s 2020 renewables target or its fourth carbon budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, the Government’s recent “reset” contained little to help us get there. I want the UK to develop a credible plan to deliver the 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 that our groundbreaking Climate Change Act 2008 requires. That is important in itself, but it is also a stepping stone or a foundation for moving towards net zero emissions.
In the limited time I have left, I want to say this: net zero is a huge ask. As Paris demonstrated, the world is a long way from that 2050 aspiration of 80%, and even further from that of net zero. We must therefore begin work on what a net zero carbon society should require. We must look at the research and engage scientists and engineers to make this a reality. If I learned one thing during my time as shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change it was that my job was not just to talk to the converted, but to convince those for whom this is not top of their agenda that it is the reality for them, and is something of which they can be a part and from which they can benefit. Let us get down to the practicalities and, across the House, make this happen.