Sentience and Welfare of Animals

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on having secured not just one debate this afternoon, but two. It is good to see that so many parliamentarians are interested in animal welfare issues, because that certainly never used to be the case. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who organised a splendid dinner last week. There are no political divides between us when it comes to our interest in animal welfare measures, although unlike her, I am not a vegan. She has done a splendid job by having secured this afternoon’s two debates.

I was very keen to leave the European Union for all sorts of reasons. I think our animal welfare legislation is perhaps the best in the world. I will not use my brief contribution as an opportunity to attack the farming community, because it faces a number of difficult challenges, but that will not stop me speaking out about animal sentience. I am a proud patron, like you, Sir Roger, of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. I have worked very closely with those pushing to recognise animals as the sentient things that they are. Animal welfare is undoubtedly of increasing concern among the general public.

We are in the middle of a crisis; it is a nightmare, like the worst sort of science fiction movie ever. If older people are to be asked to spend more time in their homes, animals will be of enormous importance to them. Scientists have proven that animals are capable of feeling pain. There should be no argument about that. Animals suffer fear and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) said, they experience joy and comfort. Animals have evolved to give themselves the best possible chance of survival. Sentience extends to being able to identify situations that cause harm; for example, mother hens teach their chicks which foods are good to eat.

Over the years, I have been involved in most animal welfare issues, particularly the campaign to stop live exports of animals and put an end to millions of farm animals being forced to endure journeys of hundreds of thousands of miles for slaughter or fattening. I was taken by the fact that the Prime Minister, in perhaps his first speech, said:

“Let’s promote the welfare of animals that has always been so close to the hearts of the British people.”

I am sure his father and partner are a great influence in those matters, so it is good to know that the person in charge of our nation tells us that he regards this as a very high priority. Inhuman practices show a complete disregard for the fact that animals experience the pain, stress and suffering of cruel journeys.

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

Let me first put on record my interest as a trustee of World Horse Welfare. Does my hon. Friend agree that the very act of transportation causes enormous stress? Although, unlike him, I did not advocate leaving the European Union, this is one area where it could be an advantage, in that it will enable us to prevent the stress that is placed on animals that are transported to the continent.

[Sir David Amess]

My right hon. Friend made that point far better than I could, and I totally agree. It is unacceptable that animals are kept in appalling conditions and that the evidence that they experience fear and pain is ignored. As a matter of urgency, industries such as farming must recognise the sentience of animals. They are trying to recognise that and adjust their practices accordingly, but perhaps in the next debate I will be able to enlarge upon that.

The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said that we are a nation of animal lovers. Of that there is no doubt. Colleagues on my side of the House have found that people power is influencing our views—the general public feel strongly about this. Although the Animal Welfare Act 2006 acknowledged that animals experience pain and suffering, it did not explicitly recognise animal sentience. Now that we have left the European Union, that should be introduced into legislation. The Minister might argue that it is not necessary, but I remain to be persuaded.

Many parliamentarians were delighted to meet Finn the dog for Finn’s law part two, or the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which will increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. Finn’s law came into force in June 2019 and put in place protections for service animals, such as police dogs and horses, from violent attacks. It is that sort of legislation that gives the United Kingdom its proud position of leading the way on animal welfare issues. That is why I want us to lead the way and enshrine animal sentience in law.

We have a very high standard in this country, but if we do not take action to legislate on animal sentience, we will put that proud record in jeopardy. I am glad that we have left the European Union, but I want the United Kingdom to influence the rest of the world through our already high standards.

Waste Incineration Facilities

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate. Her parting shot was that her constituents do not want an ecological eyesore as their new landmark, and my constituents feel exactly the same way about the proposals to build a giant incinerator between the villages of Longparish and Barton Stacey. Only two weeks have passed since we last debated this subject, and it is right that we should do so again, because the Minister did not have time to respond. It is imperative that she should have the opportunity to give a fuller answer than she had time to do last time.

I regret to have to rehearse the issue we face in Romsey and Southampton North, where American conglomerate Wheelabrator seeks to build a massive, industrial-scale incinerator the size of Battersea power station in the Hampshire countryside. Billed by the applicants as a green waste-to-energy scheme, locally there are serious doubts that a proposal such as this can ever be green. So enormous is the development that it is to be determined by the Secretary of State—it is classified as a nationally significant infrastructure project—rather than by the local waste and minerals authority, Hampshire County Council or the local borough council, Test Valley Borough Council. I commend both those councils for being resolute in their opposition to it.

I will not rehearse the many good planning reasons why the scheme should be refused, but there are serious questions about whether it will ever generate the amount of power required to achieve the level of a national infrastructure project. On its website, Wheelabrator proudly proclaims that the scheme will have an energy generating capacity of up to 65 MW, but in public consultations with residents, the company has acknowledged that that is entirely dependent upon the calorific value of the feedstock. We know we have to get better at removing plastics from the waste stream, and those plastics have some of the highest calorific values when burned. I commend the steps the Government have taken so far, but much more can and must be done.

I visited a packaging manufacturer in my constituency with the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—we look terribly attractive wearing blue hairnets. The company’s managing director kept making the point that they wanted to use high-quality recycled plastics in their packaging, but it was too difficult to get hold of them. They used a percentage of recycled, but it was easier and cheaper to get fresh plastics than to extract plastics from the waste stream. They wanted Government action to ensure that the plastics that we all know are in the waste stream can be redirected into businesses such as theirs.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

In Scotland, any new incinerator is required by law to remove all metals and plastics from the waste product before it is incinerated. Would the right hon. Lady welcome similar legislation in England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

It is critical that we redouble efforts to ensure that anything that can be reused and recycled is extracted from the waste stream, whether metal or plastic. At Barton Stacey Primary School, the children have embraced the message we heard a few weeks ago in another room in Parliament, when a giant Womble urged us to repair, re-use, recycle and reduce. We have to keep striving to reduce the amount of material going into the waste stream.

Two weeks ago, I raised the issue of an incineration tax. I do not recall whether the Minister responded to that point, but I fear she did not, so perhaps she can today. Before I came to this place, I was a borough councillor in Test Valley. I always said I represented the ward with the most landfill sites—existing, former and proposed. Landfill is subject to a tax, and it is absolutely right that the next step up the waste hierarchy should be similarly taxed. The Budget statement of October 2018 included a reference to the consideration of an incineration tax. The time for consideration has passed.

Turning to emissions—I recognise that I only have a minute left—we all recognise that the EU relatively recently tightened regulations governing permitted levels of emissions from incinerators, but is the Minister content that being within permitted levels is good enough? Where is the aspiration and ambition? Surely, at a time when we are seeking to improve air quality, we should be looking to reduce the levels of emissions that are allowed. I have lost count of the number of times over the last three and a half years that we have been told that leaving the EU will provide us with opportunities. Surely, this is one area in which we can go further and faster than would otherwise have been allowed. We must do more and not slip back into the lazy argument that development will be allowed only within current regulations.

When it comes to monitoring emissions, the Environment Agency technique has been to sample test. The new BAT—best available techniques—measurements appear to require continuous monitoring. Certainly, should the abomination in my constituency go ahead, local people will demand continuous monitoring of key pollutants and an assurance that the EA will hold companies’ feet to the fire—apologies for the pun—to ensure that they abide by those standards.

The World Health Organisation indicates that there is no such thing as a safe level of particulate matter in our air, and that is echoed on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website. The particulate plume from the proposed incinerator in my constituency would cover the primary schools of Barton Stacey, Longparish, Wherwell and Stockbridge, and many other primary schools in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).

We have declared a climate emergency. We have bold ambitions, through the Environment Bill, to make radical strides forward in creating a cleaner and greener environment for ourselves, our children and generations to come. We cannot do that if we keep pumping pollutants into our atmosphere. I urge the Minister, who I believe genuinely cares about these issues, to ensure that she has as tight a grip as possible on our future waste strategy so we simply do not keep doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Rebecca Pow]

Very briefly.

[Caroline Nokes]

I respectfully point out that the Minister has 12 more minutes. This issue is important. We heard the comment in the October 2018 Budget statement, and we have heard the Minister’s comments on it now. Is she prepared to put a timescale on that?

[Rebecca Pow]

No. Processes will be followed. So much of what is coming down the tracks, through the resources and waste strategy and the Environment Bill, should introduce a paradigm shift in the way we treat waste. The intention is that a tax may never need to be introduced, but one will have to watch the direction of travel and whether we are really cutting down on waste, because that is the intention before we ever have to introduce a tax.

As Members pointed out, incinerating has a carbon impact, but the evidence available is that the carbon impact of most mixed waste streams commonly sent to energy-from-waste plants is lower than if we sent it to landfill. Every day that passes brings new advances in carbon capture, and I am pleased to report that the Government will invest £800 million in this technology to deploy the first carbon capture clusters by the mid-2020s.The technology could potentially be applied to energy-from-waste plants to capture the carbon emissions from incinerating waste, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions even further. I point out, because the shadow Minister mentioned this issue, that all municipal waste incinerators are combined heat and power-enabled. Only nine deliver heat, but they all supply electricity.

The Government are clear that energy from waste should not compete with greater waste prevention, reuse or recycling. Currently, England has enough operational energy-from-waste capacity to treat about 38% of residual municipal waste, including a proportion of commercial and industrial waste. The majority of the 40 or so existing plants use conventional incineration with energy recovery, as that is tried and tested, but other technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, could achieve greater efficiencies, reducing environmental impact and delivering outputs beyond electricity generation. This is a changing space, and science is obviously benefiting the sector. Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, conventional energy from waste will continue to have an important role in diverting waste from landfill, and it is the best option for most waste that cannot be reused or recycled.

I mentioned on 28 January that the Government are working to drive greater efficiency of energy-from-waste plants. That is largely through Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy initiatives and it includes encouraging use of the heat that the plants produce, in addition to the electricity generated. The Government have in place other, wider measures that help to draw waste away from landfill and incineration. There is an opportunity to deliver significant greenhouse gas savings by converting the wastes into transport fuel, for example. Through the renewable transport fuel obligation—that is quite a mouthful—the Government incentivise the use of organic waste such as cooking oil and food waste to produce renewable fuels. The Department for Transport is examining the potential to support innovative waste-to-fuel technologies that have the capacity to produce advanced fuels, including even jet fuel.

Many hon. Members touched on regulation. Energy-from-waste plants in England are regulated by the Environment Agency and must comply with the strict emission limits set down in legislation. That includes plants using gasification technology. Every application for a new plant is assessed by the agency to ensure that it will use the best available techniques to minimise emissions and that it will not have a significant effect on local air quality. The Environment Agency will not issue an environmental permit if the proposed plant will have a significant impact on the environment or will harm human health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I am going to plough on, because I want to get some of the points across that I could not make last time.

As the planning application referred to by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West is subject to an appeal, it is the role of the Planning Inspectorate to consider all the material planning considerations that are relevant to the case, and from all parties, including the local planning authority, the applicant and those who might have made representations on the application—and of course all those people who signed the petition. However, I note the request made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for him to recover the appeal for his determination. As it is a live planning appeal, I am sure the hon. Member understands that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Once operational, energy-from-waste plants are closely regulated through a programme of regular inspections and audits carried out by the Environment Agency, which also carefully considers the results of the continuous air emissions monitoring that all plants must do to meet the conditions of their environmental permit.

The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) raised the issue of air quality in particular, but air quality is of course devolved to local authorities, and the Greater London Authority is responsible for what happens in London. However, energy-from-waste plants must report any breaches in respect of emissions to the EA within 24 hours, so there are strict controls.

Health issues were touched on in particular. As part of the permitting process, the Environment Agency consults Public Health England and the local director of public health on every energy-from-waste application that it receives and takes their comments into account when deciding whether to issue a permit. I must point out that our clean air strategy has been commended by the World Health Organisation, and there are aims in it to halve any harm caused to human health by air quality. We therefore have strict controls coming down the tracks, and local authorities are all becoming engaged with them. Hon. Members should note that the position of Public Health England-remains that modern and well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. That is what that body itself has said.

[Caroline Nokes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

Very briefly.

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend appears to have only one page of her speech left, so I am sure we have plenty of time for her to read that out. I am conscious that she has made many comments about municipal waste facilities, but unfortunately the proposal in my constituency is not for a municipal one but for an entirely commercial one. Although I accept her reassurances about current standards and EA monitoring, does she think that that goes far enough?

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course there is a place for commercial waste incinerators, which is what my right hon. Friend refers to. We have in place an entire system of structures, permits, and checks and balances, but it is essential that they are seen to function properly and that they are monitored closely and conducted in the right way.

To conclude, I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West for bringing forward this debate. This clearly is a heated issue, which has raised a lot of concerns, but I hope I have made it clear that harnessing energy from residual waste has its place as part of a wide, holistic waste management system. That will deliver value from waste as a resource. I wanted to be very clear, and I hope it has come out in what I have said, that the measures in the resources and waste strategy and the Environment Bill will enable a paradigm shift, in relation to reducing, reusing and recycling our waste, that should limit the amount that ever has to go to incineration and landfill. I hope that, from what I have said, hon. Members understand what is happening, the direction that the Government are absolutely committed to, and the move to a circular economy.

Industrial and Commercial Waste Incineration

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He and I have not historically agreed on much, but we certainly agree on this. I will not pretend that I am bringing expert views to the debate, but my impassioned plea to the Minister is this: please can we get our policy on industrial-scale incineration right?

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who met me last week to discuss this issue. I appreciate the constructive manner in which she engaged with it. We have an ambitious plan to reach net zero by 2050, and everyone in the Chamber—I hope—is committed to clean energy generation and waste reduction.

Just last week, in the room next door, we had a giant Womble carrying a placard and insisting that we recycle, re-use, rethink, and that is absolutely the direction of travel in which we must move. All over the country, however, from Cardiff South to Romsey and Southampton North, there are proposals for yet more incinerators that are, in many cases, dressed up as energy producing waste plants. As we heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, in many instances that energy cannot be put into the national grid. The connections are remote and, in some cases, the energy is like a Trojan horse—it is presented as clean, green way to heat the local town, but is actually far from being that.

We have to account for the true cost of those facilities, the impact on air quality, the emissions from heavy diesel vehicles driven many hundreds of miles to bring waste from far afield, and the current policy, which allows CO₂ from biogenic sources to be ignored in the context of climate change. At best, only 50% of the energy generated from the facilities can be considered renewable, and we should be extremely concerned about the other half. That 50% of energy comes from burning fossil carbon—plastics—and emits as much pollution and CO₂ as coal-fired energy. Would we really consider building new coal-fired power stations?

Of course, there is a baseline: to keep running, the giant incinerators have to have enough fuel source. While industry urges us to believe that there is more than enough industrial and commercial waste to exceed the demand generated by the monster incinerators, we are seeing a sea change in public opinion. People—especially young people—are coming to understand that we cannot continue to consume and dispose at the same rate as we have been.

Even the big supermarkets are coming on board. Last week, Tesco—and this week, Sainsbury’s—announced a reduction in packaging, particularly plastic packaging. Corporates are not paying lip service to their need to minimise waste. They are actually getting involved and ensuring that they do it. Businesses small and large across my constituency recognise that this is not just good for the environment, but good for their costs.

I am conscious that we have only a little time, but I will turn to the reason for my attendance. In my constituency, the American conglomerate Wheelabrator plans a giant energy-from-waste facility. It will be twice the size of Winchester cathedral, but with none of that glorious building’s architectural merit, and with chimneys that would reach 80 metres high. The facility would be built between the beautiful Test Valley villages of Barton Stacey and Longparish.

One of Wheelabrator’s arguments in favour of the facility is that by using Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs methodology for calculating carbon impact, the applicant can claim that the project will be a net gain on CO₂ equivalents, compared with landfilling the same waste. However, DEFRA, among others, recognises that the results from that model are sensitive to the type of waste incinerated. In other words, a small change in the ratio of biogenic and non-biogenic carbon sources can reverse the impact from a net positive to a net negative. The analysis carried out on commercial and industrial waste to justify those results dates back to 2003. That is incredibly out of date, but is the only source from the UK that can be relied on.

So much has changed, and continues to change, since 2003. Far greater efforts than ever are being made ensure that we remove green waste and food waste from the waste streams and, although there is still a long way to go, we are getting better at removing recyclates, and we will continue to improve.

Aside from the specifics of the massive plant that is planned at Harewood, we need to pause and rethink our strategy on incineration. Time does not allow me to examine in detail the issue of air quality and the balance—I use that term loosely—that the applicant must strike between the visual impact of tall chimneys and the need to make them high enough to disperse the emissions over a less concentrated area. In Test Valley, we are blessed with exceptionally good air quality, which means that the chimneys might not need to be as high. That of course means that more pollutants can be released without breaching Environment Agency limits. What sort of horrific equation is that? Applicants are able to get away with emitting more because the air quality is currently good. Surely our aim should be to work with the Environment Agency to reduce those limits and seek an overall improvement, not the lowest common denominator.

We need to improve regulations to make them tighter, rather than having applicants rely on the emissions set out within existing regulations, which I raised in the Queen’s Speech debate a couple of weeks ago. Although I recognise the specific needs of local authorities, this debate is about commercial and industrial waste, not municipal waste, so we have to consider commercial operations and whether it is fair, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has said, to have a landfill tax and not an incineration tax. Incineration is simply not an environmentally sustainable way to tackle waste management. It may be better than landfill in the waste hierarchy—only just—but to allow incineration to proliferate simply does not address the climate emergency that we all agree exists.

Restoring Nature and Climate Change

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon and to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who serves on the Environmental Audit Committee. When I first came to this place, I served on that Committee alongside the Minister, and we spent many a jolly afternoon debating a wide range of subjects and conducting various inquiries.

I fear this speech may become a march around my constituency. In the words of the chief executive of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Debbie Tan, we must look to local solutions. The national picture is crucial, but in each of our constituencies we can ensure that there are good and important projects.

I want to focus on trees. A fortnight ago, Extinction Rebellion came to Westminster and provided each of us with a tree. Perhaps it was not wholly sustainable, being in a single-use plastic pot. None the less, I was struck by the image in Portcullis House of Birnam wood coming to Dunsinane, as these walking trees were paraded through the building. The humble oak tree, a fantastic symbol of our countryside, is one of the best carbon reservoirs we could have. I was disappointed that afternoon to get a beech tree rather than an oak, but I proudly took it home and ensured it was planted in my constituency. The oak tree lives and grows for 200 years, which is why it is important that we plant all the time, ensuring there is a replenished stock.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) mentioned the Department of Health and Social Care being an important partner with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it comes to the environment, but we must also look to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because it has a crucial role in ensuring that our natural environment works hand in hand with the built environment, so we can address the challenge of climate change. I am blessed to represent a heavily treed constituency, but there are many instances of historic oak trees being chopped down, despite having tree preservation orders. There is relentless pressure to build more houses in areas where there is a conflict between nature and the built environment. Valley Park Woodlands are hard up against the 3,000 or so houses built in Valley Park.

Given the pressure that exists, there has to be a balance; that is what much of this debate is about. Of course, we have to provide houses, but we have to ensure that they are in the right place and that there is access to the natural environment so that people can enjoy the special areas that need to be preserved, or simply have somewhere to walk the dog. Those things do not always fit together very easily—walking the dog in an SSSI is never a good idea. There are many examples in my constituency of pressures on Ramsar protected sites such as those in the New Forest, as well as places such as Emer Bog in North Baddesley. It is about providing the right facilities.

I spent 10 years as my local authority’s cabinet member for leisure. At the end of that time, we were heavily in negotiations with the local landowner to take possession of an area called Fishlake Meadows. The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust now describes the area as a

“glimpse of how the Test Valley would have looked over 2000 years ago…a dynamic, shifting swathe of ponds, lakes, reedbed, willow scrub and fen grassland”,

but 20 years ago it was farmed agricultural land—it was drained, planted and ploughed for food that we clearly did not require. It is a much healthier environment now that it has been given back to nature and is functioning exactly as it should: as a flood prevention area for the town of Romsey and as a place where ospreys, otters and kingfishers can thrive. It is all about ensuring that we have the right resources in place to support the land. Hon. Members have spoken about nature being “tidied up”, but when we took possession of Fishlake Meadows, it was at a tipping point. If it had been left any longer, the balance would have tipped towards those invasive species that are not wholly desirable, and bringing it back to the point it is at today would have been a much harder job.

I wish to pick up on comments made about farming. It is important to reflect that agriculture can have an important role for good. Last Friday, I had a visit on my schedule to Broughton Water Buffalo in my constituency. Who would have thought that Indian water buffalo provided so much good to the Hampshire countryside? They are farmed completely sustainably, fed only on grass and moved on to different pasture every day. The hay that they eat in winter is grown on the farm, where more than 15,000 trees have been planted in the past few years. That is an example of how local farmers can play a fantastic role in ensuring that the environment is at the forefront and climate change is uppermost in their thinking when they decide how to get a return from their land and protect it at the same time. Unfortunately, the weather in Hampshire was too miserable for me to be able to go, but it is certainly high on my list of priorities. Who knows? We may all have an opportunity in the next few weeks to disappear back to our constituencies and stomp around in our wellies to our heart’s content.

My final point is about volunteering. It has been suggested that volunteers might be inclined to “tidy up”, but actually in both Valley Park Woodlands and Fishlake Meadows a fantastic relationship has built up with the local communities and the local university—Southampton University, which I am blessed to have on the very edge of my constituency. In many instances, it is students who have been on the forefront of ensuring that nature is not tidied up, but enhanced and given the opportunity to thrive as we all want it to.

The Minister will know that part of my constituency is on the edge of the New Forest. We have heard a great deal about the reservoir of CO₂ that peat bogs can provide; peat has not been burned in the New Forest for many a long year, but there are still instances where it is dug, quite illegally, so the national park authority has a massive role to play in ensuring that laws are adhered to and peat bogs are restored and maintained. Again, that can provide some conflict. I had better declare an interest as a member of—I am going to get the name wrong—not the New Forest Pony Breeding and Cattle Society, but one of the other horsey societies in the New Forest. There is a real conflict between draining the peat bogs, which riders would love because it would give us wider access to the forest, and the crucial need to ensure for nature’s sake that that does not happen and that peat bogs and mires are managed correctly.

Many hon. Members who have spoken in our debate were recognised a fortnight ago with species champion awards. I will make a quick pitch for the species that I champion: the Duke of Burgundy butterfly, which I gather is the pollinator that has recovered most over the past 12 months. I would like to pretend that that is the result of some great breeding programme of mine, but sadly it is not; it is the result of our warm summers and the efforts of landowners to ensure that the habitats for that extremely endangered butterfly are kept as they should be. In yet another example of how farming can work hand in hand with nature, it is coppiced hazel that provides the best environment for that butterfly. It is important that forestry management continues, but it needs to continue in a way that enables species and, crucially, pollinators to thrive.

I have probably said enough. I very much welcome our recognition of the crucial role that nature can play in sucking up CO₂. In the words of the hon. Member for Bristol East, we do not need any great technology to do that; trees can do it for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for introducing the debate so well. He spoke with passion in his calm-mannered speech, and many of the points he raised set us up nicely for what was a good debate on all sides of the Chamber.

It is quite common for there to be consensus across all parties in Westminster Hall. If only BBC Parliament and the news channels showed more of what goes on here and less of what goes on in the main Chamber, people would see politics at its best. Many of the debates that take place here get into the detail and intricacies. They encourage Ministers to look at the details that matter, not just the soundbites. When we look at rewilding and restoring nature, it is in many cases the detail that matters. It is easy to put big picture phraseologies around how we want to restore and rewild nature—let us insert a very large number of trees and say we will plant this—but it is the detail and delivery that makes a really big difference.

It has been said by colleagues on both sides of the Chamber that climate change is real. In Parliament, businesses, local government and in all our communities, we are confronted by a pressing question: since Parliament has declared a climate emergency, what are you doing differently? If the answer is nothing, as frequently it is, that is not a good enough answer. When it comes to restoring nature, it means not only looking at how we reverse the biodiversity loss in rural areas, but how we reverse it in urban areas as well. It is about what role our brilliant local councils can play, as well as central Government. It is about businesses, voluntary groups, the third sector, and co-operatives and mutuals as well. There are lots of challenges and it is up to each and every one of us to do something.

That is why, when the shadow DEFRA team talks about the climate emergency, my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Sue Hayman) and for Stroud (Dr Drew) are always keen to mention the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) used in her remarks: this is a climate and ecological emergency. If we focus solely on carbon, we will miss part of the debate. That is why we need to look at habitat loss, biodiversity loss, the problems with our soil and so much more besides.

The issue matters to all of us, no matter where we live. We know that catastrophe awaits us if we do not act sooner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned, we are already seeing the effects now. If we do not drastically cut the amount of carbon we produce, the result will be sea level rises, extreme weather, population movements, and large parts of our planet—our home—becoming inhospitable and unliveable. There will also be greater biodiversity loss, habitat loss and the extinction of countless animal, insect, fish and plant species.

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

Indeed, while the debate has been going on, according to the latest biodiversity loss figures we will have lost a couple of species around the world. That shows just how pressing the matter is. Many of those species might not be household names. We had good debates on the ivory ban, in which the Minister played a part, regarding the loss of some flagship species—the elephant and the rhino—due to hunting activities. However, as we saw in the debate about the loss of insects led by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), small insects that many of us will not know the names of are just as important to our environment.

That is why it is good that so many Members have spoken about why rewilding is good. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East and for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) talked about activities in their constituencies, highlighting best practice. Other Members discussed the big themes. I was very glad that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) mentioned green walls in schools and roadside planting. Frequently, it is not just about big schemes; small things add up as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) said that we need to have more nature-based solutions, which is at the heart of what we are talking about. Frequently, we get very good language, but not enough action follows. That is why we need to say that rewilding and restoring nature is good, and we should promote it much more. It is a really important part of a nature-led solution to the climate and ecological emergency.

The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North spoke passionately about the importance of trees, and Opposition Members made contributions about the variety of trees as well. We need not only to plant more trees, but to ensure that the species that we plant do not contribute to a mono-species environment in which it is harder for insects, birdlife and other plants to thrive. We need to have a mixed approach because, in some cases, not ordering a million trees of the same species makes it slightly more expensive. However, ordering different species is what creates a truly unique environment, and we know from the research that planting multiple species alongside each other sequesters more carbon and provides a home for more animal species than having tree species of the same variety in the same location. When we talk about tree planting, we need to ensure that we are talking about true diversity.

The Government say a lot of good words on tree planting. Indeed, their manifesto commitment to plant so many trees, as my hon. Friend for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned, was positive. It is a shame that we have not seen action on it. I know that the Minister will not accept any greenwash in his Department, but unfortunately, we have lately had very bold soundbites and very poor delivery on tree planting. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how he intends to reverse that.

Sequestering carbon in our forests is really important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East spoke about the importance of, and the opportunity to, sequester so much more in our natural environment, which could come from a potential change in agricultural setting. I look forward to the introduction of the Agriculture Bill and, as the shadow Minister for fisheries, that of the Fisheries Bill. Those two very important Bills have been hamstrung by the Brexit paralysis, but we need them because of the impact on our natural environment and on coastal and rural communities.

Many Members spoke about the importance of rewetting our peat bogs and preventing the burning of our grouse moors. My party launched that policy during the summer, and I spent an entire day at BBC Plymouth talking to different radio shows and TV stations about why moving driven grouse shooting and changing the economy and approach surrounding it could create additional biodiversity in those rural areas.

That approach works not only on driven grouse shooting, but on rewilding other forms of our natural environment. It is important to make the case not just for a rural environment, but for an urban and rural environment. We need to enhance biodiversity in all settings. As the majority of our population live in urban environments, it is important that our activities as individuals can take place in the areas where we live, not just the areas we want to visit or that we might think of when we talk about natural environments.

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber, very boldly called for a policy for water. Indeed, the Government’s policies for water are far too managerial when it comes to our response to climate change. I encourage the new Minister to give his Department a little kick in that area, because there is an opportunity to go much further. The over-extraction of water from our chalk streams, for instance, rightly carries an awful lot of headlines. Severe damage is being done to our chalk streams, and it is not just fantastic figures such as Feargal Sharkey who campaign in those areas. Local groups right across our chalk stream communities are really concerned about what is happening in those precious and unique environments. We need to do so much more about that.

[Caroline Nokes]

I have in my constituency the finest chalk stream in the world, the River Test. It is not simply abstraction that is one of our big challenges; we have a significant problem with nitrates going into our watercourses, which is causing huge challenges locally.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Lady is exactly right. Frequently, when it comes to problems of biodiversity loss and habitat loss, the problems are always “and” rather than “or”—as are the solutions. That gives me an opportunity to mention the contribution of the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). I feared that he may have stumbled into the incorrect debate for most of his remarks; however, he raised an important point about pharmaceutical effluents seeping into waterways.

The Minister has not yet had an opportunity to sit with me in a Delegated Legislation Committee and hear me talk about water quality, but I am sure those days will come very soon. He will hear of my concern about coked-up eels in the River Thames. Cocaine passed through by human behaviour is resulting in severe consequences for our marine life. “Coked-up eels” is a phrase that sometimes attracts the attention of our friends in the media, but I know that the Minister will be very familiar with the impact of human behaviour on the natural environment.

In my last few remarks, I will mention one part of the petition that has not really been picked up on. The petitioners said:

“Those who manage our land and sea play a pivotal role and should be supported to come together to deliver carbon reductions.”

Indeed, before the debate the World Wide Fund for Nature sent round a very helpful briefing paper about the importance of seagrass replanting. The majority of our debates about carbon sequestration tend to focus on tree planting, and for good reason. Trees are part of our natural environment. We drive past them, walk past them, and cycle past them, and we have them in our own gardens and our parks. They are vivid, and indelibly part of the solution. However, seagrasses can sequester 35 times more carbon than equivalent tree planting in the Amazon, for instance.

There is a huge opportunity to expand our seagrass replanting. Indeed, that is what is taking place in Plymouth Sound, the country’s first national marine park, in my constituency. The reintroduction and replanting of seagrass and kelp forests have a hugely important part to play not only in the biodiversity and fantastic marine species in our coastal waters, but in sequestering carbon. We cannot underestimate the importance of the oceans in playing a part in climate change. They have saved our bacon so many times regarding climate change, because of the amount of carbon they absorb. That is leading to ocean acidification and the loss of habitats, as we see around the world.

In sequestering more carbon, we must not focus only on tree planting, as the Government rightly have in their headline policy. I would like the Government to look, through their marine policy—both in terms of the UK’s coastal waters and our waters around our overseas territories further afield, which I know the Minister has an interest in—at how the planting of seagrass, kelp and other marine plant forms can not only contribute to habitat restoration, providing a nursery for many fish and other marine life, but provide an opportunity to sequester so much of the carbon that we have spoken about.

If we do not act quickly, climate change will be irreversible. That is why all the topics that we have spoken about, from actions at ministerial level down to the actions of local groups and wildlife groups, which we have heard so much about today, are so important. We must all do more to tackle climate change. We must all recognise that the climate emergency means that the way we live, work, travel and play all need to change. That is why the direction set by Ministers is so important. Under the previous regime, we had countless consultations from DEFRA, but not enough action. I hope that in this new era, with the Minister in place, there will be an end to the greenwashing and the obsession with press releases. I hope that the era of acting properly, with the swiftness and urgency that we need to address the climate emergency, will truly have begun.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

Having spent a lot of my life looking into sheep’s mouths in ageing them, I know how important it is to ensure that we have a system that we can demonstrate clearly does not present any risk to health. We were keen to move away from carcase splitting. We took a precautionary approach because of the delays in delivering Brexit, but I hope we can make progress once we have left the European Union.

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

Access to food also requires access to labour to plant, care for and pick it. Over the last year, I have had many representations from farmers in my constituency and from the National Farmers Union. What representations is my right hon. Friend making to Cabinet colleagues advocating a points-based system to make sure that that has sufficient flex so that there is access to labour not just seasonally, but all year round?

[Mr Goodwill]

My right hon. Friend and I are both former Immigration Ministers, so we know this issue. Indeed, one of the points made to me at the Fruit Focus event was the need to access labour to pick our fruit. The pilot scheme that my right hon. Friend brought forward during her time at the Home Office is a step in the right direction, but we do need to ensure we can have the workforce to pick the fruit, particularly given the weakness of the pound and the fact that perhaps not all European Union citizens are as attracted to come to the UK as they were.

Dog Fighting

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Cameron]

That sounds like an excellent pilot, and I would like to see it expanded throughout the country if it is successful.

During training, dogs are usually kept penned or chained. They are raised in isolation, yet we know they are man’s best friend. They are starved and taunted to trigger extreme survival instincts and to encourage aggression. They may be forced to tread water in pools, to run on a treadmill, while another terrified animal is dangled in front of them as bait, or to hang, as described, from their jaws, while dangling from a chain or tree baited with meat. They are slammed against walls to toughen them up. Many may be injected with steroids. Some dog fighters sharpen their dogs’ teeth, cut off their ears to prevent latching during fights or even add roach poison to their food, so that their fur tastes bad to other dogs.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. What she has just outlined shows a massive scale of premeditation, planning, thought and—I hesitate to use this word—investment. Does she not agree that the people who put in that effort to cause such suffering to animals must have sentences that properly reflect the activities they have engaged in, not just in fighting dogs but in the planning for that?

[Dr Cameron]

I wholeheartedly agree. We know from research on psychology that individuals who engage in animal cruelty show traits of psychopathy and are then very much more likely to engage in cruelty against humans.

Dog fighting results in torn flesh, blood loss, disembowelment and death. Many dogs are found dead, dumped in the countryside. Dogs that win are forced to fight again. They are sold on to breed puppies for profit. Female dogs are strapped down on rape stands, while males impregnate them. There is new evidence of casual dog fighting, with offenders fighting their dogs in public places and then capturing that on mobile telephones.

Many of the dogs that do not fight, or lose fights, are used, as described, as bait animals. Undercover reporters from animal welfare charities have met dog breeders who offer pit bull puppies and dogs of the bully kutta breed for protection and fighting. The story of Cupcake, brought to our awareness by the League Against Cruel Sports, highlights the issue of bait animals. Cupcake’s life was basically torture: her teeth were ground down to prevent her from protecting herself and she was used as bait for other dogs. Kay, who is now looking after Cupcake, has said:

“Man up—if you have a lust for fighting go out and fight yourself… To victimise and torture a vulnerable creature…to create a status or an image…is…despicable”.

Battersea Dogs and Cats Home regularly takes in dogs bearing the physical or mental scars of dog fighting: traumatised animals with tell-tale bite marks and filed down teeth. Many have had their jaws wired shut. They are cast out, although, as we have described, many are never found or they are killed and discarded. We need to establish a simple message: people involved in dog fighting are cruel and callous, and they must be convicted. We ask ourselves: why does dog fighting happen? Who on earth would want to engage in this violent pursuit for pleasure or profit?

The RSPCA has identified a typology of dog fighting that helps to categorise those involved. There is traditional organised dog fighting, which involves working-class males and is an underground activity, where a large amount of money is gambled on dogs. Pit bull terriers are almost exclusively used for that type of fight. Individuals involved do not just happen upon it—they may well be involved in other forms of organised crime. They have a life of violence and torturing, and killing animals is an adjunct to criminal lives.

There is a cultural typology whereby individuals from differing cultures that do not prohibit dog fighting bring those activities to the UK despite their being banned. Those individuals require education. Chain street is described as a new trend for dog fighting, which is seen in inner cities, where young men in gangs or on the fringes fight dogs to settle scores or to try to assert their standing in their communities.

The League Against Cruel Sports identifies different levels of dog fighting. Level 1 is impromptu street fights, part of street culture. Level 2 is hobbyist—I cannot imagine dog fighting as a hobby—operating on a localised fighting circuit. Level 3 is professional sophisticated dog rings, with trained dogs from particular bloodlines, taking place in a pit, with high-stakes gambling, which is highly secretive and invitation-only.

Research by Middlesex University in November 2015 indicated that dog fighting has historically thrived on its ability to convince our society that it does not exist. There is a severe lack of information and data on dog fighting. Further research is therefore required. There are varied measures of recording such offences, which limits data analysis. The largest element of known and recorded dog-fighting activity relates to the possession or custody of fighting dogs, but data do not distinguish between possession and involvement in dog fighting.

There is also inconsistency in procedures between agencies when it comes to tackling the issue. Dog fighting may not even be identified if it is easier to address the issue under animal welfare legislation, so there is under-reporting and under-recording. There is a lack of recording between dog fighting and other offences. Such recording is very much needed now that we know it is recognised as a gateway crime.

Inadequacy in reporting, recording and prosecution is important, because it impacts negatively on the resources provided for dog-fighting enforcement. It also impacts negatively in appropriate convictions and the severity of sentences.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ben Howlett]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have to admit that I am not an expert on this subject. Hopefully, the Minister will answer that question in due course.

Moving on to the rest of my speech, neonics are of great concern to many of our constituents because of how they operate. As I have said, I am not a scientist, but I understand that neonics are rapidly absorbed when sprayed on plants or, more commonly, used to treat seeds to protect plants throughout their lives. As well as disrupting the neurological function of the pests they are meant to target, neonics are also toxic to bees and other pollinators. In 2013, the EU introduced a ban on the use of three types of neonics on crops that are particularly attractive to bees—namely, spring-planted cereals and flowering crops.

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

On the point about the three types of neonicotinoids that caused concern back in 2013, does my hon. Friend agree that the farming community and, indeed, retail can play a leadership role on this issue? The Leckford estate, which is owned by the John Lewis Partnership, is in my constituency. In response to the concerns in 2013, it stopped using neonics, and since then has done masses of work to increase the viability and sustainability of all pollinators on the estate.

[Ben Howlett]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. I agree that removing neonics from the chain of production has not caused some sort of massive collapse in the system. In many ways it has had a very limited effect. I agree that all producers have a responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

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

9. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to make guidance clearer on the use of commonly used names on ballot papers.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The commission first clarified its guidance on the law on commonly used names in 2011, then restated that guidance in March 2015 when it became clear that there was some confusion surrounding the rules. The Electoral Commission keeps its guidance under regular review.

[Caroline Nokes]

Advice from the Electoral Commission at the recent local elections suggested that middle names were not acceptable as commonly used names, leaving the wonderful councillor John Nigel Steward Anderdon on the ballot paper simply as “Nige”. What assurances can my hon. Friend give me that guidance will be clearer in the future?

[Mr Streeter]

The law that we in this House passed in 2006 states that a candidate may state a commonly used forename if it is different from any other forename that he or she has; therefore the use of a second or third Christian name—for example, Nigel or Boris—does not qualify under the 2006 legislation. The Electoral Commission is reviewing the matter, and if people have representations they would like to make, the commission would be grateful to receive them.

Animal Welfare (Non-stun Slaughter)

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I was pleased to support my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, because I am a strong supporter of more transparent labelling for meat products. The wording of the e-petition does not go into the religious rites said over slaughtered meat, but he makes an extremely good point.

We have already discussed that there is no nice way for any animal to die. It is important, however, to get in context the volumes of halal and shechita meat compared with everything else. One estimate is that 114 million animals are killed annually in the UK using the halal method, 80% of which will have been stunned first, and only 2 million animals are killed under the Jewish shechita method. An RSPCA poll showed that only two fifths of people surveyed knew that the exemption in the law applied to the shechita method of slaughter. Therefore, while there has been much comment ahead of the debate from the Jewish community, the number of animals slaughtered according to shechita requirements is small.

To put that into content, while there is no nice way for an animal to die, sadly there are many instances in which animals are mis-stunned and mis-slaughtered. In my research for the debate, I was horrified to realise that, each year, potentially hundreds of thousands of animals are not stunned properly before slaughter, yet data on the extent of the problem are practically non-existent.

When the Minister addresses the Chamber, I hope he will stress his commitment to get the Food Standards Agency to raise its game to ensure not only that all slaughterhouses are properly monitored, but that the number of mis-stuns is properly recorded. In some years, critical instances of mis-stunning have been in single figures when we all know that the scale of the problem is potentially hundreds of thousands. Of course, the number of animals mis-stunned could well be greater than the number of animals slaughtered by the shechita method appropriate for the Jewish community.

The strong view of the BVA, the RSPCA and the other organisations behind the e-petition is that there is clear scientific evidence that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress. Behavioural and brain scanning research reveals that animals experience pain when their neck is cut and they inhale their own blood, which causes pain and distress—that was very much the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Slaughter without pre-stunning causes a delay to loss of consciousness. It can take up to two minutes for cattle to lose consciousness, up to 20 seconds for sheep, up to two and a half minutes or more for poultry, and sometimes 15 minutes or more for fish. Pre-stunning delivers an instant loss of consciousness when it is done correctly.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that a great deal more research has been done on this matter recently, and that our knowledge of the effects on animals has increased? We understand better nowadays their level of suffering than we ever have previously.

[Mr Hollobone]

That is an extremely good point, and the House will want to ensure that our domestic legislation follows the evidence. If the quality of the evidence is improved by scientific advance, that should surely be reflected in the laws that we pass.

As has been said, EU and UK law requires all farm animals to be stunned before slaughter, but there is an exemption for religious slaughter. That comes back to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Mansfield: although the e-petition mentions stun versus non-stun, one soon gets on to the religious dimension. The EU law on slaughter is contained in European Council regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. The regulation came into force in January 2013 and allows member states to apply a derogation to permit slaughter without stunning for religious and traditional purposes. That can be decided at member state level.

Interestingly, practice differs across the European Union. Slaughter without prior stunning has been banned in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark. In Austria, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia, stunning is required immediately after the incision if the animal has not been stunned before. In Germany, abattoirs have to prove the religious needs, and the number of animals to be slaughtered to satisfy the needs of the religious community concerned, before they are granted a licence. In Australia, stunning at slaughter is required, but there is an option for a state or meat inspection authority to provide an exemption and approve an abattoir for ritual slaughter without prior stunning for the domestic market, but even in those cases, post-cut stunning is a requirement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned the large number of animals that are slaughtered in this country without having been stunned first, and how that exceeds the requirements of the Muslim and Jewish communities. The Food Standards Agency carried out a survey of slaughterhouses in September 2013, and the results published last month indicated that in 2013, 31 million poultry animals, 2.5 million sheep and goats, and 44,000 cattle were not stunned. The number of slaughtered chickens, sheep, goats and cattle is more than is required for the Muslim and Jewish communities to consume.

The British Veterinary Association does not agree with me. It does not support calls to label meat as halal or kosher compulsorily because, in its view, that would not help consumers. As we have mentioned, 80% of halal slaughter is pre-stunned and the hindquarters of animals killed by the non-stun shechita method are not regarded as kosher and are therefore unlabelled.

In a November 2014 debate in this Chamber that I had the privilege to chair, the Minister said that

“from the EU perspective, ‘stunned’ has a clear legal definition in the legislation, and it is simply that an animal is rendered insensible to pain almost immediately.”

He also said that it was

“a clear definition and the scientific evidence does not support the argument that a cut without prior stunning achieves that.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 169WH.]

I understand that that goes directly against the shechita understanding, in that a cut to the throat stuns, kills and exsanguinates all in one go, so there is clearly a different view, and that circle needs to be squared. The shechita authorities in this country need to make a more powerful case to Her Majesty’s Government if they want their view to prevail.

Winter Flooding (Preparation)

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is perhaps appropriate, Mr Bone, that I bring this debate back to Hampshire, which is where it started, with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), whom I congratulate on leading it.

In Romsey and the Test valley villages last winter, there were many types of flooding. I did not even know about the whole range, which includes ground water, surface water and foul drainage flooding. Finally, the banks of the Fishlake stream and the River Test burst and there was a dramatic influx of water into people’s houses and businesses.

As many hon. Members have mentioned, all the agencies worked incredibly hard. I emphasise that in Romsey it really was a multi-agency approach, including the EA, the county council, the borough council, the town council and the surrounding parishes. The fire service did an absolutely cracking job at all times in Romsey. Eventually, the military responded in the face of a rising tide of water.

Southern Water struggled to tanker away the foul effluent in many cases where the drainage had been infiltrated with surface water, but it kept going. I have to mention the householders, who—

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I really do not have time. I am sorry, but I am left with a very few minutes to talk about flooding in Hampshire, which is where we started.

Householders were bringing out endless coffee and cakes for the tanker drivers, because they recognised that they were the people keeping the sewage out of their homes.

What of the aftermath? I thank the Minister for coming to Romsey last month to speak to residents and the EA, and to learn about the cat flap, which was a temporary structure that has now been removed, and about what could be done to protect the town and the surrounding villages and prevent the Test from causing future mayhem. The Minister’s Lib Dem colleagues, albeit at local council level, criticised his visit, describing it as a political stunt. I do not believe for a minute that it was. I put on record my thanks to him for coming and for his genuine interest.

Of course, the big question on everybody’s minds in Romsey is, what more needs to be done? I can tell the Minister that the Test is significantly higher today than when he visited last month and residents are extremely anxious as they look at the weather forecast and the rain. The EA has worked hard to repair the banks of the Fishlake stream and much work has been done in the villages to ensure that the water can flow more freely. In Stockbridge there is even a fully worked-up scheme that the local chamber of commerce assures me will cost only £50,000 to implement, but its question is, where is that money coming from? Southern Water has done some amazing work improving drainage networks. In one village alone, King’s Somborne, it spent £700,000, and it has worked on the pumping station in Longparish and improved the drains in Chilbolton.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned, the county council—I pay tribute to it, particularly for its work with the pathfinder project—has done sterling work in both the Test and Itchen catchment areas and worked hard with the Environment Agency, refining ideas and strategies ahead of the autumn statement.

I could praise the work of the insurance companies, which responded well at the time, but of course now residents have the problem of high renewals and high excesses: £25,000 in some cases. The promised Flood Re scheme seems to be a long time coming. The Minister heard residents mention that when he visited Romsey. They do not care whether the delay is with the insurance company or the Department; they just want it sorted.

The Minister will have understood from his visit that the Fishlake stream and the River Test pass through Greatbridge and behind the Budds Lane industrial estate. This was where the greatest impact was felt by householders and businesses. The cat flap was only a temporary structure. Residents want to understand who is responsible for a permanent measure, who will fund it and, importantly, when it might happen. I share their desire for answers.

The Causeway is the only access to the Southern Water pumping station. If that fails and is inaccessible, the sewage in Romsey backs up very quickly and it emerges in people’s houses in Riverside gardens, in Middlebridge street, and in sheltered accommodation at Bridge court. We heard about the cost-benefit ratio. There may not be a massive population here, but these are people’s homes and their livelihoods—their very existence—and I cannot begin to describe how unpleasant it is for people to be knee-deep in sewage in their own kitchen. There has to be recognition that that pumping station and its access is of strategic importance to the town.

I would like to hear from the Minister an assurance that the Test valley, although not as glamorous as Windsor and not as badly hit as Somerset, has not been forgotten and that he understands the problem and, following his visit, will do his best to convince the Chancellor that it deserves the sort of funding needed to prevent the dreadful experience of last winter.