Oral Answers to Questions

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

Our plan is to make the system work and to ensure that those farmers who need help can go into digital support centres. We anticipate that those centres will be busier in April, but we have ensured that they have sufficient capacity to upscale and to help farmers. It is important to recognise that about half of all farmers have only permanent pasture, and the requirement for them to map their details is lesser than it is for arable farmers. We are looking at ways of expediting this process.

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

This Government should be hugely proud of the massive improvement in the Rural Payments Agency, compared with the chaos of a few years ago. We should also give thanks to its chief executive, Mark Grimshaw, for his work on making that happen. It is a fact that the IT systems will be critical in future. They will have to work, but we also need to enable farmers to use IT out in rural areas of the country that often have no access. The Minister will of course do everything he can to make the system work, but will he also redouble his efforts to persuade other Government Departments that rural broadband is absolutely critical to this important industry?

Contaminated Land (Householder Responsibility)

David Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am particularly pleased to have secured this brief debate on an issue that affects perhaps only a limited number of people, but in a substantial way: the liabilities of householders when contamination is found on their land, whether that is their home or business. I will deal in particular with domestic householders and their property, which is governed by part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 1995. I look back on the 1990 Act with some fondness, as I was at that time employed as a consultant by the World Wildlife Fund to help it with the passage of that Bill and therefore had a lot of dealings with it. It contained a very important principle: where land is polluted, it is right that the polluter pays to clean up what he or she caused.

The 1990 Act provides for what is termed a class A person: the polluter, or someone who knowingly allows land under their control to be polluted, and provides that, in the first instance, they should pay for any remedial action. It also introduces a separate, class B person—the so-called “appropriate person”—if the class A person cannot be identified or is no longer in existence. They are the current owner or occupier of the land.

That causes a potential difficulty, which was drawn to my attention in the first instance by Dr Jeff Downing, who was the contaminated land officer for South Somerset district council. He came to see me in a personal capacity as a constituent because he was so worried about the consequences of his work for a particular couple who lived in my constituency. He saw a problem with the system and he wanted me to find whether there was any way to alleviate that. I am particularly grateful to Dr Downing, who no longer works for South Somerset and has moved to another council, for his help in spelling out the situation and how the arrangements were working against the principles of natural justice and perversely in public policy terms.

Dr Downing drew my attention to the situation of a retired couple in Langport—I will not mention their names because I have not got their explicit agreement to do so and I do not want to embarrass them in any way—who, following an inspection from South Somerset district council, found that their house and garden had contaminated land from former gasworks. They were completely unaware of that and they could not have not been aware—there had been no failure of appropriate searches when they bought the property some time ago—so it came as a complete bolt out of the blue that they were the proud owners of contaminated land.

The difficulty arose that the cost of removing that contamination was substantial: the estimates on the first assessment were about £260,000 to £270,000. That sum was well beyond their means; in fact, I suspect it was well beyond the value of their house, so there was no question of using a charge on the house or some other mechanism even if that were fair.

Dr Downing pointed out that the arrangements contain certain inflexibilities. First, the council has a statutory obligation to search and identify contaminated land. It has no discretion on that and certainly if a suspicion of contaminated land is reported, it has to investigate and add that to its records. Secondly, once it has identified such land, it has a statutory duty with a small professional discretion about the nature of the contamination to register that land as contaminated land. Thirdly, it has a statutory obligation to ensure that remedial action, normally removal of the contaminated soil, takes place if, in its opinion—this is the only area where I think it has significant discretion—there is a significant possibility of significant harm: the so-called SPOSH, an inelegant acronym on which it applies its professional judgment. However, such discretion is purely professional; it has to make a judgment on potential significant harm and if it thinks that there is potential significant harm, it must take action.

If all those tests, in which the council has little discretion, are passed, costs—they are significant in this case—must fall on someone and, in the absence of a class A polluter, they fall on the householder. In this case, despite the best efforts put into finding the successors connected to the original industrial activity, the couple were found to be liable.

In each of those steps along the way, the council cannot take into account the circumstances of the person on whom the liability falls, save for the very last step, which is whether they waive any part of the cost of remedial action. That has happened on occasions in the past few years by use of the contaminated land grant, provided by the Government through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The difficulty lies in the fact that that grant has been shrunk and will disappear completely by April 2017.

There will be two consequences. First, if no funding is available for the removal of contaminated land––a public good––to help people who had no direct involvement in the polluting but find themselves victims of circumstances beyond their control, that will be a manifest injustice. That is simply not right. Secondly, councils could subvent the costs of remedial work from their own funds. However, that is difficult—I would say impossible. Dr Downing told me, “There are probably still hundreds of properties that are affected by pollution where this may apply in one small district council area alone.” That is a massive capital sum, well beyond what the local authority can reasonably bear. That is difficult in itself, but it also provides a massive disincentive to the authorities to carry out the statutory duty we want them to perform, which is to look assiduously for pollution and deal with that effectively for the safety of the environment and the local population. The system has a built-in disincentive.

I suspect that when the decision was made—the Minister knows that I know only too well the Department’s budgeting difficulties, both currently and over the past few years—there was perhaps a thought that the contaminated land grant had served its purpose. It is, after all, 15 years since the regulations and statutory guidance came into effect. The Department perhaps thought that most of the contaminated land had been identified and dealt with, but in reality, as I am told by someone who deals with the matter face to face and day by day, that is not the case. A lot of unidentified contaminated land still needs to be dealt with. If that was the Department’s assumption, it was incorrect. It might have been thought that the £500,000 available in the current year was sufficient, but it clearly is not. Spread across the whole country, that money is nowhere near enough. I quoted a figure for one single garden in one single property, and 10 such properties have been identified already in the area that I am describing.

We have a significant problem of public policy. I wrote a little while ago to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). I received a response from Lord de Mauley. I am grateful for his letter, which was sympathetic and clearly recognised the difficulties that my constituents found themselves in, but at the end of the day it provided scant support. One thing may have happened in the interim, but Lord de Mauley said that my constituents are having the cost met by the district council. I am not convinced that that is the case, and I am trying to establish whether it is, but let us not rest the case on their circumstances. I hope that it is the case, but the last I heard from the council, it was looking at a loan or other means of spreading the cost, rather than removing the cost from the couple. The more important point is that nothing is available this year.

Lord de Mauley’s letter states that the property

“meets the criteria for a priority category 3 site…but does not meet the criteria for a priority category 1 site requiring urgent remediation. We are therefore unable to offer funding for remediation this year as the contingency fund has been fully allocated to higher priority sites.”

I understand the idea of priority, but it does not help under the circumstances. Lord de Mauley continues:

“the Environment Agency has approved in principle the provisional sum of £50,000 contribution to the remediation.”

That is certainly welcome, but goes nowhere near meeting the total cost. I accept that the cost might be driven down further, were there a competitive tendering process. We are not quite at that stage yet, but there appears to be a substantial gap between the cost as originally estimated and the support that may or may not be available.

To return to where I started, I am not yet convinced that I have a solution for people who are extraordinarily and quite reasonably worried about whether they will lose their entire life savings, the value of their house and more to meet a circumstance that is of no direct benefit to them other than the fact it would make their house saleable again. This is the Catch-22, of course: if contaminated land is not removed once it has been identified, there is still a problem because the land is unsaleable, so its owner has lost the value anyway. It is a conundrum. The couple are worried that they still face a substantial bill that they are not sure they can meet. That is a huge worry for a couple on a fixed income with no obvious means of finding alternative borrowings.

There is also the wider question, because the case demonstrates a clear failing in the architecture of the system. The system was always based on the idea that those who caused the pollution dealt with the pollution. It was never intended to penalise those who unknowingly occupy that land much later on and find themselves saddled with an enormous bill. Where those circumstances applied, it was always assumed that the local council would have the support of public funding to make good the land in question in the public interest. Remove the contaminated land grant and a massive loophole in the system is created that threatens to make the whole thing not function properly and, in the process, cause many who find themselves in such circumstances sleepless nights and a great deal of concern, and that is entirely unjustified.

I ask the Minister to look again at the situation—I appreciate that it is not his direct responsibility, so he will need to talk to colleagues in the Department—and potentially go back to the Treasury and say, “This is a capital grant. It is not a revenue grant, although it is paid out of departmental revenue.” We as a country need to identify the problem so that those who in all innocence find themselves facing it are not put in the same position as my constituents. Most of all—laying aside that equity issue for those individuals—if we want public policy to work properly and if we want councils to look for this land, identify it and deal with it, we cannot give them a massive disincentive to doing so, because frankly it will not work. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on securing the debate. I assure him that representing as I do a seat with towns built on the sites of 18th and 19th-century tin mining, I am well aware that contaminated land is still an issue in many parts of the country and that it has in no way gone away. The idea that it has is not the driver behind some of the changes we have made.

Contaminated land is a complex area and can cause hardship and anxiety for people, particularly where their homes are involved. The case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, where he suggested the cost could be £270,000, very much demonstrates that point. An estimated 90% of the remediation of contaminated sites is market-driven and occurs under the planning regime, but there will continue to be sites that are not suitable for further development, but require remediation.

I was interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s involvement in the passage of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As he knows, the contaminated land regime, as set out in part 2A of that Act, provides a risk-based approach to the identification and remediation of land where contamination poses an unacceptable risk to human health, property or the environment. Responsibility for identifying that contaminated land rests with the local authority, as set out under part 2A. Changes made to the part 2A statutory guidance in April 2012 have resulted in a more risk-based approach to identifying and remediating contaminated land, meaning that more resource can be directed to those sites most in need. From our discussions with local authorities, we know that the new statutory guidance is proving helpful to them and has helped to simplify a complex area.

Part 2A, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is based on the principle of polluter pays. Therefore, liability will always be apportioned in the first instance to the company or person that caused the pollution or knowingly permitted it to be caused. However, it is not always possible to identify the polluter. In some cases, the pollution was caused long ago, and the company responsible may since have folded. When that happens, the costs of remediation can fall to the site owner or the occupier of the land. That might be the local authority itself, but it can also be individual private householders. Crucially, however, local authorities are required to take into account the hardship that may be caused if all costs, or partial costs, are to be apportioned. When local authorities are reaching decisions over cost apportionment, hardship must be considered on a case-by-case basis, with regard given to the principles set out in the statutory guidance.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency matter relating to the Whatley gasworks in Somerset, I understand that in the case of the home owner on that site, no liable polluter could be identified. Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was unable to offer further funding this year, as the contingency fund was allocated to higher-priority sites, I can confirm that in previous years, capital grants totalling almost £90,000 have been issued for the same site to cover the costs of investigation. The hon. Gentleman was unclear about this, but my understanding is that, in the end, the local council agreed to bear the costs of remediation because it determined that hardship would be caused to the householders who owned the affected property had they been made to pay. I know that he questions whether that is the case, and I am more than willing to clarify that point after the debate, but my understanding is that the costs will be borne in this instance.

A related point about part 2A is that it is clear that where a class B person owns and occupies a dwelling on contaminated land, the council should consider waiving or reducing the costs of recovery if the person did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the land was contaminated when they brought it. My understanding is that the people in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman did have a survey carried out when they purchased the property many years ago, which is also a mitigating circumstance.

[Mr Heath]

The local authority has been as helpful as possible in this case and did identify both of those factors as arguments for waiving the fees. Nevertheless, it expressed concern that a number of other properties around the district council area will end up in similar circumstances. That would mean a substantial capital sum mounting up very quickly, which would be difficult for a small district council to support.

[George Eustice]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and hope to reassure him in a moment when I discuss some of the other things that we are doing to move from looking only at the hazard of contaminated land to a more risk-based approach. From 2012 onwards, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that councils do not unnecessarily identify sites that may well have some contamination but are not a priority. I am pleased that the case he has raised appears to have been resolved satisfactorily; however, he has put his finger on an important point, because other sites might be affected.

As I said at the start of my speech, it is important to recognise that an estimated 90% of the cleaning up of contaminated land in England and Wales is carried out through the planning system under the national planning policy framework. The Government encourage the focus on a market-based approach to dealing with contaminated land. One of the financial incentives provided by Government to encourage the re-development of contaminated land is land remediation relief, which allows companies to claim back corporation tax on 150% of the costs of dealing with contaminated land and is intended to influence developers’ decisions positively by increasing the profitability of redevelopment projects. We should also note that the existing environmental permitting regime for the current activities with the greatest potential to cause contamination is designed to ensure that no new part 2A contaminated sites are created.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the capital grant scheme is being phased out. I know that local authorities were disappointed when DEFRA announced in December 2013 that the contaminated land capital grants scheme would be closed. The phasing out of the grants scheme is regrettable, but it reflected a necessary shift to a more sustainable approach in the face of pressures on the public finances, of which the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, having been a DEFRA Minister himself. The cornerstone of our new approach was the revised guidance that we issued in 2012 that has saved local authorities and businesses money by giving much more clarity over how to decide whether affected sites need to be remediated.

In March 2014, we published DEFRA-funded research to develop new screening levels that will help public authorities and developers to screen out low-risk land from the need for further investigation and so prevent unnecessary remediation works. The crucial thing is to ensure that there is no obligation on local authorities to search for sites that might not be of particularly high risk and should not be a priority, thereby creating a potential liability for householders. By adopting a more risk-based, less hazard-based approach to these issues, we have helped to address some concerns.

The screening values that we published sit alongside DEFRA research that was published in 2012 on the normal background concentrations of contaminants. That forms part of a toolkit for use by the contaminated land sector that will help to ensure that pragmatic, evidence-based decisions can be taken, thereby reducing costs while ensuring a high level of protection to human health and the environment. DEFRA continues to support the national experts panel on contaminated land, the remit of which is to advise local authorities on difficult decisions under part 2A at more complex contaminated sites. The panel is available as a free resource for local authorities to access, and is intended to help where it is unclear whether a site should be determined as contaminated under part 2A. Case studies on the output of the panel’s work will be published so that all local authorities can benefit from the lessons learned.

In conclusion, we remain committed to ensuring that the appropriate policy tools are available to support local authorities in carrying out their duties under part 2A. Local authorities that require help and advice about how best to manage affected sites should obtain advice from industry experts where necessary. Authorities should also try to work with the owner of the land to see what benefits could be gained via the land remediation relief scheme. Although there will always be difficult cases that require more detailed consideration, the changes that we have introduced to the contaminated land management regime since 2012 have stimulated growth, enabled previously abandoned sites to be developed and returned to productive use, and delivered significant benefits for the economy, while maintaining a high degree of protection for human health and the environment.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on bringing this debate before the House. I hope I have been able to allay some of his concerns, both on the individual case that he raised, which I understand has now been resolved, and more widely.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way at this point. In the course of the debate, I have been advised that the matter has not yet been resolved. It might be a matter of loan or of grant, but the household concerned is still not absolutely clear about where the funding will come from.

[George Eustice]

In which case that is a disappointment, because I thought that we had found a solution. After the debate, I will discuss the case with my noble Friend Lord de Mauley, with whom I know the hon. Gentleman has previously corresponded. As I said, the local authority could show forbearance on a couple of grounds and waive the costs: first, on the grounds of hardship, for which there would seem to be a good case, given the high costs; and secondly, on the grounds that there was no reason why the householders should have known or had reason to know about the contamination, given that they had a survey conducted when they purchased the property. We will look further at the case and see whether a resolution can be found.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

In April 2014 we published a tree health management plan alongside our plant biosecurity strategy, and we are implementing those, working closely with stakeholders. We take a risk-based approach to plant health and we have created a prioritised risk register to inform appropriate action against pests and diseases. For example, we have introduced movement restrictions or notification requirements for certain tree species, and we appointed a senior chief bio-health officer, Professor Nicola Spence.

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

Planting trees has been one of the great success stories over the past few years, but simply planting trees is not enough. We must manage our woodland, find commercial uses for wood products, and make sure that our forests are available for a wide range of uses. Can the Minister reassure me that the report of the independent panel on forestry and the subsequent strategy developed within the Department are very much ongoing business, and that we will see many of those ideas put into practice over the coming years?

[Dan Rogerson]

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he did in this area as Minister. Yesterday I met our stakeholder forum, which involves people from the commercial sector right the way through to local charity and voluntary groups. We can do much better on managing woodland in this country and we are taking the steps that will enable us to do that so that it can be more productive, better for biodiversity and better for local economies too, through initiatives such as Grown in Britain.

Control of Horses Bill

David Heath Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

It is strange that I should have views on both this Bill and the one that preceded it. I entirely support this Bill, which does something necessary and helpful.

Amendment 1 clarifies the definition of “horse” in clause 1. I just suggest that it should, as the Welsh equivalent Bill does, make it clear that the word “horse” includes ponies and jennets.

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

I am not trying to be clever or unhelpful, but I do think that the normal definition of a horse would include anything that was of the same species as a horse—that is to say equus ferus caballus—which ponies and jennets are. Donkeys are separately identified because they are not the same species. They are equines, but they are equus africanus asinus, if I remember correctly, and therefore they have to be defined separately, but—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I very rarely pick up on points like this, but the hon. Gentleman must address the Chair—or must look as if he is just occasionally addressing the Chair—and not have his back to the House.

[Mr Heath]

Please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not been in the House for very long, as you know, and that is a mistake that incomers make. I do apologise. I also sound like I am lecturing the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not trying to; I am simply saying that I think his amendment is otiose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I welcome the Bill and warmly congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who has achieved two things that I have been unable to achieve. First, as a private Member he has steered a Bill to this stage in proceedings, something I have never achieved in 18 years in this House. If the Bill passes through the other place, he will also, as a private Member, have put in place legislation on antisocial behaviour which it is an open secret I would have liked to implement when I was a Home Office Minister. This is a signal victory for common sense in dealing with an issue that is a real problem in many of our constituencies.

I first came across the difficulty some years ago when a constituent came to see me in my advice surgery. She was in despair because she had horses on her land and there was absolutely nothing she could do to remove them—she had looked into it. She felt that the law was simply inadequate to meet her needs. Subsequently, I heard of many cases, particularly in the Frome area of my constituency and the parish of Selwood. I had a very valuable meeting with Selwood parish council, the members of which were very exercised by the issue. Anecdotally, I understand that one gentleman in my area owns up to 80 horses but no land. They are all grazed on other people’s land, and that is theft; it is antisocial behaviour, irresponsible and a dereliction of the duty of care for those horses. I think that the Bill will go some way towards rectifying the situation.

Of course, this is not just about rural areas, as the hon. Member for York Outer correctly says. It applies across the entire country and in some areas it seems to be a particular scourge. I remember having a very valuable meeting with the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who described the difficulties in his area and his feeling that something along the lines of this Bill would be helpful.

The hon. Member for York Outer has done a great service to many landowners around the country in introducing this legislation. Does it do everything that is required? No, of course it does not. It makes a contribution and certainly improves the situation in legislation, but there is still a significant issue that I have never found a way of successfully addressing: the question of strict liability on the part of the landowner for animals on their land. It seems completely wrong to me to have insult added to injury by not only having a horse one does not want on one’s land but being responsible for any actions of that horse and for its welfare. For somebody who does not want the animal, that is a preposterous position to be in, but that is perhaps for another day.

I hope, assuming that local authorities and police take it seriously and use the provisions within it, that the Bill will make it easier to secure the early removal of horses that are illegally grazing on land that is not in the ownership or possession of the owner of the horse. It will make it easier for horses to be removed even where it is difficult to know exactly who owns them, which is part of the problem. Such horses are often not chipped, so it is difficult to establish ownership, and that is one way in which people deliberately evade their responsibility.

The Bill is warmly to be welcomed and I hope that it will have a swift passage in the other place. If that is the case, as one hopes that it will be, the hon. Member for York Outer will have done a great service to many people around the country who are looking to this House to address what they see as a significant issue. He has done that, so well done.

Winter Floods 2013-14

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Heath]

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

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

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

[Chris Ruane]

This may sound a little sour, but even though 500 houses were flooded in St Asaph and 140 were flooded in east Rhyl, the Prime Minister failed to visit either community.

[Mr Heath]

I am very sorry to hear that. In the previous year the Prime Minister did not put in an appearance in Somerset, so perhaps it was a case of hitting the right moment and of the strength with which representations were made. Certainly we had the Government’s attention, which had an effect.

To deal first with the immediate response, before I move on to the Government’s response I have to pay tribute again to the huge voluntary effort. People behaved quite extraordinarily in helping their neighbours, and people from further away helped those whom they did not know. There were enormous numbers of charity donations. I spend a day at the Somerset Community Foundation opening letters that were quite heartbreaking, with donations from people who could ill afford them but were giving them because they felt it was necessary to help those in distress. As many people will know, there were donations of forage for animals from farmers in other parts of the country, which were hugely welcome. That has led to the setting up of what I hope will be a permanent exchange, which will be of value.

[Rebecca Harris]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a delegation from Castle Point Motors arranged for a large shipment to go down to the Somerset levels last year, so help was coming from as far away as Benfleet and Canvey Island?

[Mr Heath]

I hope the hon. Lady will accept my grateful thanks on behalf of my constituents, because that was literally a life-saver for people and livestock in my area.

There was, I have to say, a belated response from the military, an issue that might need to be looked at. Perhaps the principal local authority did not ask for help sufficiently promptly, but until the Prime Minister intervened there was also a difficulty with the cost of involving the military. That should not happen. The Royal Marines are on our doorstep, so we do not expect that they will not be able to help when we are underwater. They are well placed to assist and would have been happy to have done so, had they been able to. When they were introduced, they were very valuable.

Local authorities worked extremely well to ensure that people were safe and had alternative housing. Enormous pumps were introduced—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton drew attention to them in her remarks, and they were quite the biggest I have ever seen. A great benefit of what happened is that we now have proper hard standing, so that those pumps can be deployed at short notice in future. However, that raises questions about some of the rather elderly pumping stations on the levels. Those stations saw their best years possibly 50 or 60 to 100 years ago. How much longer they can continue to do their unsung work I do not know.

After the immediate issues were dealt with, next came the new protections, key among which was dredging. There was a great deal of scepticism in my constituency that the Environment Agency would carry out the dredging it had promised. Such was the suspicion that it was felt that the agency would waft a dredger in the direction of the River Parrett and the River Tone and that would be about all that was done. But it was not; the dredging was done with dispatch and real urgency. The initial dredging has been completed and there is now a study looking at other areas of the river system that will need action. I hope that will go ahead in the very near future.

Where necessary, individual communities were protected. For instance, the ring barriers around Thorney and Muchelney pottery will make a real difference. They are not quite finished yet and we look at the skies with some trepidation, but they are well in hand. The Environment Agency has undertaken asset repairs on a wide scale, including at Beer Wall, and many other parts of the system are now improved.

One of the issues that grabbed the media’s attention was access problems, such as those to the village—then an island—of Muchelney. Although there was not as much water ingress into properties there as there was at Thorney, it was cut off for a long time and people found it hugely difficult to cope with that. The county council is attending to that by raising one of the road accesses to Muchelney. Unfortunately, that work has not been finished in the time scale that we hoped would apply, but we can look forward to that happening soon. We have also had a major resilience study on the greater south-west and access issues.

I turn to the big money issues, including the establishment of the Somerset rivers authority. Crucial to the Committee’s report is how we get local expertise, together with external professional expertise, to work on the entire water system. At one point I despaired that we would never reach the conclusion that we should create a Somerset rivers authority, simply because the Department for Communities and Local Government—there is no Minister from that Department here today, so I can say what I think—said that it could not be done, as the creation of such an authority would set a precedent and the funding mechanism was too difficult. I found that frustrating, so I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs managed to find the immediate funding required, but that prompts the question of where such funding will come from in the future. We can get it going, at least, but it is essential that a sustainable funding system is put in place.

There is the question of how we use the Sowy and Kings Sedgemoor drain complex as a major extension to the drainage system. Again, that involves big engineering issues, but feasibility studies have been done, and I hope that we will make progress on that in the near future.

The biggest project of all is the Parrett sluice—or barrage, depending on what people choose to call it—which will keep the sea out at high tide and ensure continuous flow in the right direction rather than the wrong one. That will help us to keep the water levels lower. So, what is not done? Apart from—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman comes on to what is not done, may I remind him that two of his colleagues are yet to speak? Could he keep an eye on the time and perhaps bring his remarks to a conclusion, so that his colleagues can get a decent innings?

[Mr Heath]

I will happily do so, Sir Edward. Is this not a three-hour debate, though? In which case, they would have a further hour each.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

That is entirely my fault. The hon. Gentleman can go on for as long as he likes.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful, Sir Edward. Having been encouraged to go on for as long as I like, I probably will not, now. I am sorry to have reminded you of that, but I did feel that an hour was probably sufficient to allow hon. Members to say what they wanted.

I come to the issues that still need to be dealt with. One of them is insurance, which was mentioned, although I think in slightly the wrong way, by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). Flood Re is coming along and, even though I did not have personal experience of working on it in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I know how much hard work was put in by Ministers at DEFRA and the Treasury and everyone else over a long period to try to secure agreement with the insurance industry to get it in place. However, until it is operational, there is a difficulty, in that people’s insurance premiums are increasing substantially.

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), went to my constituency and met local authority members and others recently to discuss insurance; I am grateful to him for that. It particularly irks people to see their premiums going up just as protections have been built. They are therefore paying much higher premiums even though their risk has reduced substantially since last year owing to the work and investment put in by the Government. That cannot be right, but that is, I am afraid, something that has been reported to me too many times. I hope that that will be dealt with.

On the second issue, the Government and their agencies get a partial tick. The Environment Agency has very much improved its relationship and information flow with local communities. It was not good; indeed, most people felt that the management did not really understand their issues. I must say that that was no reflection on local officers, who did an extraordinary job and were recognised for having done so, but there was a “them and us” feeling, which has not entirely vanished.

I will give two examples from a recent visit I made to Aller. First, there was a degree of falling out between the Environment Agency and landowners about appropriate compensation for work done on their land. It would appear that the Environment Agency had a rather high-handed attitude to such work, though that probably came from its lawyers rather than the officers directly involved.

Secondly—this worried me even more—while the floods were still in progress, ballast was put in place, at short notice, to help protect the sides of a watercourse. However, the ballast had just been dumped. The landowner had said, “If you put that there like that, it won’t be there come next winter,” and they were right; it all washed away. That is just silly and a waste of money. The message to be taken from that is to listen to the people who really know the countryside and understand what happens on land that they own and see every day of the week. I hope that the Somerset rivers authority will help to that end.

We then have the upstream issues, which, again, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned. I do not think we yet have a comprehensive and sustainable view on how we mitigate flooding by river catchment planning and by, for instance, using pillar two money to encourage planting on higher ground and changes in agricultural practice where appropriate—all the things that will help farmers on slightly higher ground to farm water to a point at which they reduce the flow and, therefore, slow the ingress of water into what used to be the great mere, the Somerset moors and levels, so that it can be removed in an orderly way. I would like to see much more attention given to that.

Indeed, on urban drainage, we have the sustainable drainage systems, but I am not yet convinced that planning is based on real understanding of concepts of water management. That goes both ways.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning SUDS. Does he not think that if we stopped building in inappropriate places and ensured that planning permission for future developments was given only once SUDS were in place, that would go some way towards creating greater resilience to future floods?

[Mr Heath]

I do. We need a much more aggressive statement of concern from the Environment Agency and, where appropriate, the water companies, that says that there is an issue that the planning authority must address, and the planning authorities would need to respond to that.

The problem is really not that difficult to understand. When the floods were at their worst, I went down a flooded road, Aller Drove, and the one thing that really struck me was that a lot of the houses there were bungalows that had been built in the past 30 or 40 years on what is more than a floodplain—it is an inland sea, on reclaimed land that is below the level of the river that runs alongside them. The same thing can be seen in Moorland village in the neighbouring constituency of Bridgwater and West Somerset. That is nonsense. Even our iron-age predecessors knew how to do that properly. There are archaeological remains in Somerset, in the village of Meare. It is very famous—the Glastonbury lake village. The lake village was completely built on stilts, because people there knew what would happen every winter, and knew that building on the ground was rather futile.

[Rebecca Harris]

I am enjoying and agree with the interesting points that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is absolutely spot on. He spoke about the need for the organisations and agencies to take more account of what people who know the land have to say. Does he agree that sometimes the Environment Agency or the water companies do not object to a local plan for housing on what all the local people know is a floodplain? It is often completely baffling to local people that their better knowledge of such issues does not seem to be taken into account.

[Mr Heath]

I am still a great believer in folk memory. People who have been around for a few years can point to where the water level reached in their grandad’s day, because we remember that sort of thing. We can say, “You build there, and it may not be this year or next year, but some time, you will be underwater. You either need to find a different site, need to construct your building in a different way, or need a mitigating factor that provides the protection that is needed. It is not for the Government eventually to come and bail you out when you have built a stupid building in a stupid place and it is underwater, so get it right in the first place.” The other side of the coin applies in terms of lack of water, and I hope that the Minister may accept the representations made by the water companies for more of a statutory interest in planning when they feel that there is a danger to their water supplies from various forms of construction or utilisation of land resources.

If we get these things right, we will be moving in the right direction. I turn to my biggest concern. So far this year, I have not had to put on more than my wellies—on my feet at least—in order to visit constituents. Wellies have been sufficient, but last year, they were not; I needed a boat. That may all change this weekend—who knows? The Somerset levels will always flood, and anyone who thinks that what has been done will prevent them from flooding does not, I am afraid, recognise the nature of the landscape and the environment. However, as I have said so many times, there is a world of difference between 3 feet deep for three weeks and 10 feet deep for 10 weeks, and that is what we are asking the Government to deal with.

The Government have done a very good job in recognising the concerns that I and my neighbours in Somerset have been raising over the last year. Having spoken on this subject 18 times, I think, in the last year, I would love to think that this may be the last time I will have to. However, the Minister can be absolutely assured that if the race against time to get the remaining things in place is lost, and if we have major flooding again in Somerset and people are forced out of their homes and trapped on islands created between the villages for the third year running, I will be making a lot of noise about it, as will my constituents, and we will want to know why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I would like to reiterate what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to add my congratulations to the Select Committee on this report. My constituency did not suffer in the particular winter that it refers to. We survived the tidal surge because we have the best tidal defences in the country. However, we have had serious problems with surface water flooding. There was a small, very localised amount of flooding last winter, but it was a particular issue in August 2013 and again in July 2014. We believe that well over 600 properties were affected. It is impossible to get the correct figure as a result of the enormous reluctance of people to admit that they were flooded, because of the fear of the impact that that would have on both their insurance and the value of their homes, but we have had two very significant flooding events. Much in this report is of considerable relevance to the experience that we have had in my constituency. After those dramatic events, it became clear to all my residents that not enough maintenance had taken place in previous years and, in their view, the various organisations responsible were not working together in the way in which they should.

I place on the record again my great gratitude to the Department, both for its own review of my flooding event and for allowing the chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, to do an independent review of what had happened. That was critical to restoring the confidence of my residents and, I think, had quite an impact in terms of ensuring that the various agencies stepped up to the plate on this occasion. I have to say that they have done that. There is still work to do, but a huge amount of work has been going on regarding the maintenance of watercourses around my borough. That has brought to light a lot of problems and inadequacies underground. There is the problem of appalling connections; there are people whose drains are not connected to anything at all.

The issue raised in the report about awareness of responsibility and confusion over maintenance responsibility was writ large in Castle Point. Shockingly, we discovered that quite a lot of the organisations—the county council, the Environment Agency and the water company—were not aware who owned which part of the stock. If someone is not sure whether they own a particular bit of stock, it is probably quite unlikely that they have been maintaining it properly. Some of my residents’ suspicions have certainly been found to be right and we are getting, I am pleased to say, to the bottom of it.

It was likewise with private landowners who have a riparian responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) mentioned, it was quite a shock to some of them to discover that they had responsibilities; they did not realise that. I am very grateful to my local county council, which has put in some gratings and grilles to try to protect parts of the watercourses to ensure that debris is not flushing through to people’s private properties. It is sometimes very difficult for them to deal with the problem.

We definitely need greater understanding not just among organisations and agencies but among the public of the importance of watercourses and whose responsibility it is to keep them clear. Frankly, I suspect that gangs come from London and fly-tip in Castle Point, and they have absolutely no regard for the fact that dumping an old sofa in what looks like a dodgy old ditch is quite likely to cause someone to flood down the line in a couple of days. We have lost touch with our understanding of the land and the importance of watercourses, and we need to bring that back. I know that the Environment Agency has great difficulty in trying to deal with the culprits who do fly-tipping, but they need to be educated about the damage that they could be causing to people.

There is now much more partnership working in my borough, I am delighted to say. The organisations are talking to one another. They are doing their gully cleaning and what have you in consultation with one another, and a lot of progress is being made.

We now have the Canvey urban drainage survey, which is a comprehensive survey of all the problems—largely underground—on Canvey Island. An unusual feature of Canvey Island is that it is below sea level, in effect, at high tide, surrounded by a fantastic flood defence wall. There are 45,000 people living there, which causes particular issues for water management. The physics make it quite important that we get things right, so the programme is an important one. I am in the strange position of being quite enthusiastic when I see it raining, because although I worry about my residents flooding, I know that the more rain we have, the sooner we will get the answers to our queries from the testing and telemetry that is going on underground to work out what is happening with our watercourses. I suspect that we will be able to come cap in hand to the Department with a bid for funding when we have the results of that survey later this year.

I am enormously grateful for the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement of more than £20 million for flood defences in Castle Point. I find myself in agreement with the Committee when they talk about loosening the rules governing what is maintenance and what is capital spend. That money is notionally capital spend, although there are some capital projects that one can undertake that lead to better maintenance, such as automatic dredge clearing and telemetry. The Environment Agency could be quite clever about that. It is sometimes hard to say what is capital and what is maintenance, but we need ongoing maintenance.

[Mr Heath]

I make the observation from my years of leading a county council that sometimes a certain fuzziness in that definition is helpful. Being able to wrap up some revenue expenditure as capital or capital expenditure as revenue, depending on the rules applied by the Treasury that year, is extraordinarily helpful in making sure that whatever needs to be done is done.

[Rebecca Harris]

From the point of view of my residents, whatever needs doing should be done, and as much fuzziness as possible would be appreciated. I have seen evidence of some fuzziness, which I am grateful for, from the various agencies already. We are, none the less, grateful for the money.

A DEFRA report mentioned the need for tree planting to mitigate the situation. That is not, strictly speaking, relevant in my area but, in some cases, the removal of large numbers of trees to build housing developments has clearly altered the water table. In my constituency, a housing development in Kiln Road, Thundersley seems to have altered the water table greatly. That was not anticipated during the planning process and therefore not taken into account. That reinforces the need for a firm statement from Government, the Environment Agency and other agencies to the effect that before housing is put in, the flooding capacity must be looked at carefully. Such consideration must cover both the urban drainage capacity and the network that it will be looped into—which may be totally inadequate, however good the standards are on a new estate—and whether the development will change the water table. In too many of the numerous housing developments in Castle Point, such things have not been taken into account, much to the cost of my residents.

I hope that the Minister will make a statement on the progress with Flood Re, because it is critical. Residents have told me, as we have already heard, that even though a considerable amount of flood alleviation work has been done in their area, and even though they have been grateful recipients of the protect and renew grant—because they flooded last summer as well—and have made considerable improvements to the flood-worthiness of their property, they are still being told that they have to pay enormous premiums and increased insurance costs. One constituent told me that her insurer had withdrawn from the ABI over Flood Re and would not be part of the scheme. That is an enormous concern to me, and it will be a major problem in an area such as Castle Point. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the progress of negotiations over Flood Re, and tell us whether he is aware of the issue that I have raised.

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

I conclude by saying that I am very encouraged, oddly, by how much progress has been made by the Department and the Environment Agency in their understanding of the importance of flood risk as a result of the devastating and horrendous events that have occurred, which have really upped everyone’s game and focused attention on the issue. We have been talking about climate change for years, but we are increasingly addressing the other side of the question, namely that if we are going to get climate change, we need to adapt so that it does not damage our residents’ lives and security. I am delighted that we are looking at that as a major issue for the country. I warn that I will keep pressing my local authority, my local council and my water company, as marvellous a job as they are doing, to keep doing more and working harder, because the job is not done yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

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

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

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

[Barry Gardiner]

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

[Mr Heath]

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

[Barry Gardiner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Government’s strategy says:

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

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

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

UK Climate Projections 2009—

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

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

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

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

[Mr Heath]

It is the understatement of the year to say that the Parrett is not the swiftest-flowing river. It is probably the slowest, and has a gradient of 1 foot every mile, which makes it all the more nonsensical that so-called experts told us that had we dredged it, an unstoppable torrent of water would have descended on Bridgwater. Some hope.

[Dan Rogerson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

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

I want to turn to the issue of response.

[Mr Heath]

Before he moves off the issue of insurance, can I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he is continuing a dialogue with the insurance companies about the two things that I see as being difficult? One is the lack of recognition of mitigation work that has been put in place, which reduces flood risk but is not recognised in the premium. The second is a phenomenon that I personally have experienced. When I tried to renew the insurance on my house recently, I found that at least half the insurance companies I contacted would not offer me a quotation because I happen to live in a house that was built in the 17th century or early 18th century, and I happen to have a river at the end of my garden. I do not believe that I am in significant danger of flood risk, but those companies would not even offer me a quotation, based on those two facts.

[Dan Rogerson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avian Influenza

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The chief veterinary officer and the chief medical officer have been working together very closely since the disease was identified. The chief medical officer and Public Health England have said that, based on the evidence they have received from the tests, there is a very low risk to public health. We will continue to work with those organisations.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the swift, proportionate and comprehensive action she has taken, but warn again that the resilience and capacity of our animal health precautions must be protected against future depredation by the Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend look again at how she can get the message across to the backyard poultry keepers, who are the most difficult to reach—they do not read the trade newspapers or have veterinary supervision at all times—about the symptoms they should be looking for in their birds so that they can report them?

[Elizabeth Truss]

First, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of animal and plant health. That is one of my key priorities as Secretary of State. As I have said, we have protected the number of vets in our organisation, despite the fact that we have had to make savings across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 2010. As soon as we imposed the restriction zone, we put out the message in the media, as well as through many organisations such as the National Farmers Union and veterinary organisations. We want to get the message across to those members of the public who keep poultry that biosecurity measures are very important and that if they have any concerns they should speak to their vet.

Dairy Industry

David Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to join the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). It is good at last to have a voice in the debate from the west country of England, where an awful lot of the finest dairy land in the country is. I shall not get into an argument about whether our milk and cheese is better than anyone else’s, because we know the answer to that in Somerset.

The point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) about the undervaluing of milk is crucial. How can it be that I can go down to the Members’ Tea Room, in this very building, and buy a silly little bottle of water, without even bubbles in it—a pint of water for 85p; and Iceland supermarket can sell 4 pints of milk for 89p? Where is the logic in that? It is outrageous that milk is undervalued to that extent.

There are clearly issues of over-supply and reduction in world demand, but the fact remains that the issue is the relationships between producers, processors, retailers and consumers. We need a supply chain that is fair at every level. I hoped that a voluntary code would achieve that, but at the moment, after appearing to work well, it is failing to do so. We need to look at it again. Is statutory imposition the answer? That has its drawbacks. Making the voluntary code statutory would limit its scope, but perhaps we have to think about that. I certainly agree that the groceries code adjudicator should be able to look at supply chain relationships, rather than simply the producer-to-retailer relationship; that would bring the dairy industry into its ambit.

What else can we do? First, the dairy industry needs to be ambitious. I do not like people saying, “Of course, we will be prey to all these imports.” We have a superb dairy industry and can beat off any competitors if we are sufficiently ambitious; but that means actively marketing dairy and dairy products, as we do, around the world. Anywhere I have been in the world, I have been able to find cheese from my constituency. We also need efficiency. There are marked differences in efficiency between dairy farmers, but it is no good shouting at those who are less efficient that they must invest, if they do not have the money to invest because they do not get a proper return on their product. We need to be able to support efficiency, and perhaps the Minister can give us his evaluation of the use of the £5 million dairy innovation fund, and tell us what more can be used.

The most important thing is for retailers, processors and producers to share the risk. Their relationship must be based on trust, and until that happens we will not have a sustainable dairy industry for the future.

National Pollinator Strategy

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) secured this debate, to which I am a co-signatory. This is an opportune moment to talk again about the national pollinator strategy and what we do in this country about pollinators, and to pick up on the issues that are still to be resolved in the development of the strategy.

I make no secret of the fact that I have been interested in this subject for a long time. I asked questions in the House eight or nine years ago about what the then Government proposed to do about bee health. They did nothing for some time, but then they did do something. I give them credit for putting money into research towards the end of their period in office.

This country can be very proud of the National Bee Unit and the work that it does. I am delighted by its work, because it underpins some of our efforts. Having said that, although I was not the Minister responsible for bee health when I was in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—that responsibility was held by my noble Friend Lord de Mauley—I looked closely at the information that was presented and was conscious of the huge gaps in our research base on this subject. That is the case not just in relation to the domestic honey bee, as it were, on which we at least have a large body of observation data from beekeepers, who know what their charges are doing, but particularly in relation to wild bees, such as the bumblebee or Bombus species, and other wild pollinators. We do not know how they integrate with the environment, what contribution they make or the state of their population health. Unless we have base figures, we have no understanding of what is happening.

What we do know is that the health of pollinators and the strength of the population are affected by a large number of factors. I suspect that climate is the biggest factor, but it is certainly not the only one. I suspect that weather played a big part in the recovery of some bee populations this year. Simply by observation, I have noticed that the bumblebee population in my garden has been substantially better this year than in previous years. There are also various diseases and infestations. The varroa mite is still a significant problem and there are many other conditions of which we need to be aware.

A major factor is whether there are sufficient suitable habitats for pollinators. That is not helped by intensive agriculture. The more effective crop management we have, the more we need other land to be available for pollinators. We must provide that balance. I am not against good crop yields—they are essential if we are to feed ourselves—but if they are to be sustainable, we need other elements to be in place. That might mean sacrificing land to provide pollinator habitats. Another factor, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke about, is the effect of various pesticides and other dressings on crops. I will return to that in a moment.

We have a lot to celebrate. I am pleased to have pushed hard for a national pollinator strategy, because it is so important. I congratulate my colleagues in the Department for pushing it forward and look forward to the day when it is finally in place. There are a number of factors that I would like the Minister to consider.

The first factor is research. We need to commission research in the right places. We must carry out research in combination with those overseas who are looking at the same issue, although perhaps in slightly different habitats, in order to understand what is going on. The key is to have a base figure for populations from which we can extrapolate future population health. We need to consider issues that relate to specific species. We need a strong scientific base in order to do that. The Department must therefore have the ability to commission research or to ensure that others do so. It might be done at the European level or elsewhere, but let us make sure that it happens.

The second factor is the recruitment of the army of citizen scientists into the process. We saw how effective that was when dealing with ash dieback last year, and how useful it was to have people who would go out and look at what was happening. It is interesting that ash dieback has now been carried by the wind to north-west England, yet not a single newspaper or parliamentarian has a word to say about that, although it was the biggest crisis ever only a year ago. However, that information helped us to provide the best response we could, even if it was incomplete—again because of the lack of knowledge —so we must use that.

The third area—this is probably the biggest point I want to leave with the Minister—is that the Government’s one major lever to improve the health of our pollinator population is to use pillar two of the common agricultural policy in an effective way to give positive encouragement to land that ought to be available for pollinators, and to the sort of growth on land that would encourage them. I have still not seen the final outcome, but when I was Agriculture Minister I pressed hard for the key element of pillar two in the future to be direct support for pollinators and to ensure that good behaviour is rewarded. We need to see headlands and land that is not available for main crops being used effectively, and the so-called ecological focus areas should provide a useful addition to the ecology of an area, rather than being rather arbitrary and token.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

At the moment, taking advice on which 5% of land should be an ecological focus area is voluntary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be slightly firmer guidance about which areas could be used as ecological focus areas, so that we get the best from them?

[Mr Heath]

I am genuinely in two minds about that. I agree that the advice must be there, and that farm and wildlife advisory groups are probably the best apparatus for doing that, along with Natural England and other agencies. However, when I was a Minister, I visited Dartmoor—not a million miles from the hon. Lady’s constituency—and spoke to farmers there. They took a different view on how they used what were then the high-level stewardship schemes, and had a less prescriptive approach. They spoke more about outcomes and what they were trying to achieve, and they let farmers use their own land skills to achieve those outcomes. That was successful, and made me think that perhaps we are sometimes too prescriptive, rather than under-prescriptive, in what we do. Yes, we need advice, but I think we sometimes underestimate the ability and willingness of good farmers to do the right thing for their local environment. They would like to do that if they are given the encouragement and scope, so let us see what we can do in terms of design.

Mention was made earlier—I think it was the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—of the importance of other Departments playing their part. DEFRA cannot do this on its own, and I would like local authorities to be much more attuned to what they can do to encourage pollinators, even if that is only ensuring that the local park contains pollinator-friendly plants, as that would make a difference.

I will conclude with perhaps the most contentious issue: pesticides. Pesticides are a hazard to insects—that is obvious; they would not be pesticides if they were not. The difficult question that the Government, chemical companies and agriculturalists have to answer all the time is whether that hazard, along with the level of exposure, is a real risk to the pollinator population. That was the difficulty we had with neonicotinoids: there was no evidence to suggest that the hazard that undoubtedly existed and could be demonstrated in sub-lethal quantities in a test tube or laboratory, represented a risk in field conditions, because no work had been done on that. I hope that work has now been done to substantiate that properly one way or another, because such a lacuna in information is unsupportable when it comes to making a competent and coherent decision. The other risk is that banning neonicotinoids encourages the use of pyrethroids and organophosphates, which we certainly do not want to promote, as they are significantly worse options not just for pollinators but for every other living creature in the vicinity.

Before I sit down I will just mention one point. Hon. Members may not know that next year we have the Milan Expo. The UK’s contribution will be based on the life of the honey bee. I am very proud that our Government and our country recognise the importance of the honey bee, so much so that that is our window to the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

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

[Mr Heath]

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

[Barry Gardiner]

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

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

Food Fraud

David Heath Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, because we are in the European Union we expect that all food that comes into this country will have been slaughtered, processed or manufactured to a standard that would be acceptable in this country. Food coming in from third world countries is another matter altogether. One issue that I concentrated on when I first became involved with the issue of food fraud was the smuggling of meat into this country from Africa. There were various types of meat, but the most serious were parts of primates, including gorillas, apes and monkeys, which certain ethnic communities in this country particularly value. It was obvious that there was no scrutiny of the safety of these meats or even what they were. There was a real concern that not only animal diseases but human diseases could be brought in by this means. Much of the meat came from west Africa. The problem of Ebola today shows that we might still face a real danger from this problem.

I certainly welcomed the final publication last Thursday of the Elliott review of the integrity and authenticity of the UK food supply. We waited quite a long time for the report, but it was worth the wait because it is a comprehensive and well set-out document. It demonstrates the UK Government’s commitment to improving the integrity and assurance of our food supply networks. Professor Elliott’s report highlights that the UK has one of the safest food supply systems in the world, with a great deal of work being done to ensure that food is safe to eat and free from chemical and microbiological contamination, and all those involved in the supply of food and those responsible for developing and enforcing legislation should be commended for what has been achieved.

More attention and more resources, however, need to be put into food authenticity and combating food fraud and food crime. At the beginning of the horsemeat problem, the important question arose about what was meant by adulteration and what was meant by contamination. As far as I am concerned, contamination is not the deliberate introduction into food of other substances—it happens by mistake or inadvertently—whereas adulteration is the deliberate introduction into food of mostly lower-priced commodities. That issue was certainly at the heart of the horsemeat scandal.

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

My hon. Friend will remember that I had some involvement in the problems at that time. It was important early on to establish a threshold for contamination/adulteration that made sense. Otherwise, we would have been in the absurd position of testing every piece of meat and finding that it was contaminated simply because somebody in the room might be shedding human DNA or because the meat had been sitting in a butcher’s shop where beef or pork sausages were not in separate airtight compartments. The level of the threshold, it seems to me, was one of the most important early advances we made in understanding the issue and ensuring that we were not attacking the wrong problem.

[Roger Williams]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work he did right at the beginning of the horsemeat scandal. He provided us with greater clarity about what was involved and about the difference between contamination and adulteration. Of course, contamination is not something that should be taken lightly in its own right. Halal meat contaminated by pork, for example, is a very serious matter for the religious beliefs of some of our communities. I do not in any way view contamination as of little interest; it is of great interest, but it must not be confused with the deliberate adulteration of food.

Food fraud is corrosive of consumer confidence, which has ramifications right through the food chain. The horsemeat contamination incident last year is an example of such a damaging effect on the food industry and on consumer trust. After “Horsegate”, a poll showed that only 56% of consumers were confident that the food they bought was what it claimed to be—a rather shocking statistic. This figure is far too high, and it is one of the reasons why it is so important that we are having this debate today.

Small businesses are especially vulnerable to food fraud, and according to the Elliott review, many have said they are struggling to stay in business because they are competing against those who cheat. That goes for farmers, too, as they grow the raw ingredients for the food industry and rely heavily on consumer confidence. It is essential to safeguard this industry.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) on securing this debate, which is of critical importance to consumers, retailers, producers and everyone involved in the food industry. As I said earlier, I was Minister with responsibility for food when the horsemeat scandal broke, and I have to say that nothing has made me angrier than what was happening then. Not only was a deliberate fraud perpetuated on consumers who deserve better, but that fraud had a serious reputational effect on very good producers in this country who had no part whatever in what had taken place. Retailers who had good reputations were trying to do the right thing but were none the less affected. We must put in place systems that are as effective as they possibly can be to prevent such a thing from happening again.

I am unashamedly a fan of British food and British food producers. We have some superb production in this country, and we should be proud not only of the quality of the food we produce but of the standards that we maintain day to day, week to week and year on year. We should deal to the best of our abilities with anything that sullies that reputation.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and former Minister for giving way. He has great experience and knowledge of this area. One of the great things about Professor Elliott is the great emphasis he places on this safe haven of intelligence coming forward and on a strengthening of the powers around whistleblowing. When the scandal was kicking off, it astonished me that people were then coming forward and whistleblowing. Elliott is right to say that there is a cultural change in the industry. There are lots of good players out there, but there needs to be a cultural mindset change to encourage people to come forward.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the earliest actions I took as a Minister was to convene a meeting—I remember it happening—at the Food Standards Agency with all the major retailers. I made it plain to them that they had a very real problem to deal with, and that that problem was not going to be resolved unless they were prepared to do the work that was necessary in terms of testing and of sharing information, which were not part of the culture of the industry at that point. I said that unless they were prepared to do that, it was impossible for the Government to take the steps that would help to restore the reputation of the food industry.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Let me reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Every food retailer was affected by the scandal. Nobody was left untouched. The most diligent retailer was also being conned by unscrupulous dealers somewhere down the chain. Did the hon. Gentleman get a sense that they were going to invest more in their own testing, or were they looking to Government for that investment? What was the balance there?

[Mr Heath]

We made it clear that testing was the retailers’ responsibility. Retailers had not only a legal responsibility but a moral responsibility to their consumers to ensure that the material they put on their shelves was what they said it was. They were put in no doubt whatever that they had to up their game, and they did, and all credit to them. I have no criticism of the actions that the retailers took to meet the demands that we placed on them for this very comprehensive testing regime, which took place not just once but time after time to ensure that the incidents that had been identified had been eliminated and remained eliminated. I have one caveat, which the Minister may wish to address: I did not feel that I had the same level of commitment from the catering industry. I am worried that as a lot of food arrives unlabelled on tables across the country through the catering industry, that might perhaps still be a weak spot. I would like to think that continuing pressure will be placed on the catering industry to be as assiduous as I hope the retailers now are about composition, testing and ensuring the integrity of their systems.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I enjoyed my hon. Friend’s tribute to British food earlier, to which I completely subscribe. Does he share my hope that we will do everything we can to maintain the high standards of British food as progress is made in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership? As negotiations continue, there is tremendous pressure from US agribusiness to try to weaken our resolve to avoid unlabelled GM food, beef treated with hormones and poultry meat that has been contaminated with chlorine, and we should do everything we can to resist that pressure and to maintain the standards that he has just praised, which I totally support.

[Mr Heath]

I see no reason to compromise on high standards of quality. There are areas that I think we can quite properly discuss with the United States in which the answer is labelling and letting consumers make the choice rather than simply having bans. Some of the areas the hon. Gentleman mentions fall into that category; others do not. I have no interest in hormone treatments being used in this country and think that it would be a very great shame if that were standard practice in our dairy herds. We have been down that road before; I remember having exactly that conversation 30 years ago when I was leader of the county council and American Pharmaceuticals proposed to bring in bovine somatotropin to increase yield in our dairy herds. As a Somerset representative, I would say that we simply do not want that. It will be bad for our cattle and for their welfare and it will also be bad for the industry as regards consumer acceptance of a very wholesome product. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says.

[David Simpson]

I neglected to apologise for my late arrival when I intervened earlier, so if I was repetitive I apologise. A number of the complaints I received in my constituency from commercial companies concerned the fact that although we welcome an open border policy for free trade within the European Union, it has its downside as regards free movement, and there were not the border checks that there should have been. There is paperwork, and we can do many things with that, but there are not the necessary physical checks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard that complaint when he was a Minister.

[Mr Heath]

I did hear that complaint and I must say that what was coming into our ports from outside the EU was a great concern of mine. I do not think sufficient precautions were in place, although they have improved since. Within the EU, although there were theoretical paper trails, when they were examined in the context of the horsemeat scandal they were found to be relatively easy to falsify. That cannot be acceptable and we need co-operation on that between member states.

The paramount responsibility of the Food Standards Agency and of Government is to maintain the safety of food. I do not want anything to be done in terms of the composition that takes away from the primary responsibility of ensuring that when consumers eat something, they are safe from infection or poisoning. That is not to say that composition is unimportant. It gives consumers something other than what they think they have bought. As we have heard, for some communities that is of very great significance, particularly those that have religious requirements about what they eat, but everybody is entitled to be sold what they think they are buying according to the label that the product bears. If people are deliberately setting out to sell something other than that, there is a very simple word for it, and that is fraud. The title of today’s debate is “Food Fraud” and the significant point is the fraud, not the food. It is a crime, and one that needs to be treated as serious. We need the apparatus to ensure that we interdict when it comes into the country and that we ensure prosecution when people involved are in this country.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am following my hon. Friend’s elegant words very closely indeed. The Secretary of State when he was the Minister responsible for farms and food, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), promised that the perpetrators of this crime would be brought to book. It must be a source of great disappointment and regret to my hon. Friend, as it is to me, that no convictions or successful prosecutions have been brought.

[Mr Heath]

I find it enormously frustrating because, frankly, the then Secretary of State and I did absolutely everything we could to mobilise and energise enforcement agencies across Europe to try to ensure that the problem was traced. I can say now because I am free to do so—the Minister may feel more constrained—that I believe that at the root of this was large-scale, European-based organised crime and that more could and should have been done by other member states to get the bottom of it.

It was a very convoluted story—we know that—and it was not easy, but I felt that having raised the issue very effectively in European Council meetings, obtained the involvement of the Commission and persuaded other member states to take it seriously, there was a palpable feeling once the press and media furore had died down that some member states were suggesting, “Let’s not push it too hard, shall we, chaps? Let’s not remind people that we had a problem and let’s just hope it all goes away.” I do not think that is good enough. I do not think that the UK Government took that view, but I am not convinced that others did not feel that once the storm had passed, it was easier simply to carry on as before. The trouble is that that meant that those people who were making an awful lot of money—we are talking about huge sums across a European nexus—continued to do so, which means that the problem will arise again.

We in this country and manufacturers and retailers across Europe made the situation worse because of the complexity of the supply chain. That has been mentioned time and again, and the more we looked into it, the more extraordinary seemed the number of different hands that some of these products went through across so many jurisdictions in Europe. One only had to look at the price of the finished product and the number of people who were supposedly making a profit to realise that that could not possibly be done in a legal way. Some of our big retailers, which have very sophisticated procurement offices, perhaps had some responsibility to ask more questions. They do now, but they should have been asking at an earlier stage about how so-called beef could travel all the way around Europe only to be sold as eight burgers for less than £1 on a British supermarket shelf. It could not be done legally.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic contribution to the debate. Does he agree that one of the strongest recommendations in Elliott is that part of the due diligence, for want of another term, from here on must be that when those in the supply chain see an offer that is too good to be true, they must ask why. When horsemeat was being sold at a quarter the price of good beef, anybody looking at it should have asked what on earth was going on.

[Mr Heath]

They should indeed. People should also be aware—the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made this point in an intervention—that the more price wars we have in our supermarkets, the more dangerous it is for good, honest suppliers, and the greater the propensity for those in the middle to try to scrape an extra margin through unfair practice. That is why I worry when our major retailers engage in food price wars, because although it may seem that that is in the interests of consumers of modest means, it is not, because those people are just as entitled to get good-quality produce for the money they spend as those paying much higher prices.

Although they are beginning to do this, retailers need to raise the status and increase the independence of those they employ to carry out testing throughout the supply chain. That will mean that if the testers suspect that something is wrong, they can say, “This has to be looked at,” and the matter will be considered at board level so that appropriate action can be taken. I do not want to start a hare running or to suggest that something very wrong is happening in the catering industry, but I worry that the quality of products that sometimes find their way into catering establishments is not as high as those sold on retail supermarket shelves.

The Food Standards Agency has a crucial role to play, but one of the difficulties that I faced as a Minister—the current Minister will face the same situation—was that I had no responsibility for the agency, so I had to answer questions in the House that were strictly speaking nothing to do with me, in the sense that the FSA had an independent role. The distinction is important, because the food industry’s sponsoring Minister should not also be its regulator, and we saw many years ago that if that happens, the public lose confidence in the regulator. However, it is important that there is the greatest possible co-ordination between DEFRA and the FSA. We had that, and I pay tribute to the agency and its officers for the work that they did with me and for their help, which I appreciated. It is important that such co-ordination take place at a high level.

I worry that local authorities do not always play their part. We need a comprehensive local authority testing system. Some local authorities are very good, but others, frankly, are not. It is easy for anyone to say, “Oh, it’s about resources,” but there is no direct correlation between the resources available and whether an authority does a good or bad job. It is more a case of whether an authority recognises that it has an essential and primary responsibility to keep people in its area safe. Just as central Government have a responsibility, so does local government, so local authorities need to carry out testing. There is a question about the laboratory service—the recommendations on the laboratory and public analysis services are crucial aspects of the package—but I do not accept that local authorities should be let off the hook if they say, “This is a low-priority area and we want to spend our money elsewhere. It’s all the Government’s fault.” That is not the case, and local authorities must recognise their responsibilities.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that resourcing is no guarantee of local authorities providing good services, because there are some very good authorities and others that are not so good. The practice of various local authorities shows that this is not a party political issue either. However, one of the Elliott report’s main recommendations is that there should be an examination of what is happening in local authorities so that we can identify the good guys and those who are not doing such a good job, find out what is best practice and how it can be achieved, and then share that information.

[Mr Heath]

I entirely agree, although I suspect that the Food Standards Agency knows an awful lot of that information already because it works directly with local authorities from day to day and will know of the results it receives from local authority analysts.

We must not set out rigid structures for the FSA that impose testing regimes for no benefit. The system must be based on intelligence and proportionality. Earned recognition, if appropriate, is an important way of redirecting resources effectively but, as Professor Elliott says, that must be coupled with spot checks to ensure that what one thinks is going on is actually going on. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to redirect FSA resources, which are always under pressure owing to the extent of its responsibilities, to testing that serves no useful purpose.

I understand exactly what Professor Elliott says about the concept of a food crime unit, but I have a concern. Food crime and fraud cover a wide spectrum of offences, ranging from low-scale inadvertence and very minor adulteration—frankly, it is not difficult to pick up and prosecute such practice, and it should be well within local authority or FSA officials’ power to take appropriate action to deal with it—to the large-scale fraud that the horsemeat scandal revealed, which I think is based on organised crime. Such fraud might require action at a much higher level, such as through the National Crime Agency, and to deal with that sort of organised crime, we need a sophisticated approach and co-operation with counterparts throughout the world, such as Interpol and Europol. I worry that if we are not careful, the food crime unit could fall betwixt and between those two ends of the spectrum, and we might have something that is ineffective at dealing with the big guys, but over-designed for the little guys. The Government need to give serious thought to the terms of reference and composition of the food crime unit, as well as to how it reports and feeds into the gangbusters in the NCA.

The one thing that worried me enormously when I was a DEFRA Minister—it still worries me enormously, and I think it will worry me more and more—was the resilience of the Department itself. DEFRA is a good Department. It does an awful lot of good work and has to cover a huge number of contingencies, but its funding and resources are now such that it would find it difficult to deal with a major incident. I hope that the Treasury and leaders in government recognise that if we have a major incident to which DEFRA is unable to respond, the consequences could be enormously damaging. I am not saying that we are at that point yet, but we must be cautious that we ensure that we do not stretch what is already a thin line—a thin blue line, red line or whatever; let us think of a colour—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Green.

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming up with a suitable colour on the spectrum. We must not stretch the thin green line so taut that we are unable to deal with an act of God, or an act of wicked men, that might cause our nation enormous problems, but I just feel that we are getting close to that edge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Let me put it back to the hon. Gentleman: when the coalition Government entered office in 2010, one of their first decisions in DEFRA was to split away authenticity testing. At that point, did they think it was appropriate to increase investment in it? We could go back and forth on this issue, but authenticity testing was still happening at that time, even if it had been reduced. I am interested in the detail, but it was continuing.

[Mr Heath]

It is very important to distinguish between the testing regime that remains within the province of the FSA and local authorities, which continued according to their priorities, and the policy developed by civil servants, which was moved to DEFRA in order to inform Ministers who were having to deal with very complex European issues of labelling and composition. That was perfectly logical. If there was confusion, it was not at the level of central Government; it may have been elsewhere.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

After the horsemeat scandal erupted in February 2013, the National Audit Office looked at the contributory factors to any delay or confusion. One of the things it pointed fairly and squarely at was the confusion about who was doing what. It pointed the finger at the machinery of government changes. The hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister, may be saying that he was not confused, but there was certainly confusion between local government and Whitehall, as well as within Whitehall, as to who was doing what. I agree with Troop and with Elliott’s interim findings that it should be put back together again, but we will have to differ on that. The question for the Government is: can they make this work if they are not going to do that?

One of our criticisms relates to the fact that just before we left government in 2010 we published what was at the time a ground-breaking, comprehensive food strategy, “Food 2030”, which followed on from our previous work on “Food Matters”. It mapped out a comprehensive and long-term strategy to ensure the provision of safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food, but it has been left on the shelf. Where is this Government’s overarching strategy to pull everything together? The answer is: there isn’t one.

Labour welcomes and supports fully all the Elliott report’s recommendations, and we will continue to urge the Government for full and speedy implementation. Professor Elliott sets out a new Government-industry partnership, some aspects of which will require a culture change in Government and in industry. He makes sound recommendations for a new food crime unit and a whole framework for national food crime prevention, encompassing Government, the FSA and industry. He calls for—it is interesting that he deals not just with the mechanics—a new mentality to meet the challenges of sourcing from complex international supply chains, and a zero-tolerance approach to food crime. He also fashions detailed proposals on whistleblowing, intelligence-gathering and co-ordinated laboratory and testing services, and stresses the need for leadership at all levels, including in Government. Most of all, he stresses—he puts this top and dead centre—the need to put the consumer first, and we agree.

Labour supports the report and all its recommendations. We believe that the industry is ready to drive the culture changes that Elliott demands and that the consumer and the public deserve. I say to the Minister, however, that we have reservations: we do not have the same confidence that the Government are serious about these changes.

Make no mistake: the Elliott report is not only a series of sound recommendations, but is an expert analysis and critique of the coalition Government’s policy on food governance and food crime. Since 2010 under this coalition Government we have seen the fragmentation of food governance; an ideological fetishism for stripping out regulation for the sake of it, whether that regulation is good for the consumer and industry or not; and front-line cutbacks in inspection at national and local level and in food-testing capabilities.

The Government have also been asleep at the wheel, reacting only when disaster happens, realising too late that cutting the brake cables and unscrewing the steering column was not a good idea. In 2010, one of this Government’s first actions was to split the responsibilities of the FSA, an agency that was, as I have said, previously regarded as the gold standard of consumer protection and industry regulation. It was deliberately fractured, which hampered clarity and leadership in food governance in the UK. It is not just me saying that; others are saying it, too.

The horsemeat scandal was the slow-motion car crash that showed how crazy that decision was. The NAO stated that when a prompt response was required to the breaking horsemeat scandal, there was confusion between, and lack of leadership in, Whitehall Departments and confusion between Whitehall and local government.

Similar, repeated concerns about the mishandling of the FSA and food governance have been raised for some time by the EFRA Committee and many other industry and food policy experts. Labour raised those concerns from the word go.

The interim Elliott report made it clear that the FSA responsibilities should be brought back together. That would deal with the NAO view that fragmentation had led to needless confusion and additional complexity. The final report has stepped back slightly, but it is still commendably forthright on the need to put rigour and reach back into the FSA.

On that and many other issues, the report carries implicit and sometimes explicit criticisms of this Government’s approach to food policy and food crime. It calls for a more robust FSA, retaining its independence, and for far greater co-ordination, which has been lacking, across government and industry. It highlights the absence of high-level round-table meetings between the chair of the FSA and the Secretaries of State for Health and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which seems to me to be a shocking omission and a glaring fault bearing in mind the fragmentation of responsibilities since 2010.

The report cites evidence from recent local authority testing that appears to show high levels of failure, particularly in meat authenticity testing, which possibly indicates fraud or the criminal adulteration of food. That is deeply worrying when set against a near halving in the number of DEFRA officials working on food authenticity since 2010, as revealed by an answer given to me by the Minister in July. It is even more worrying in the light of the immense pressures on local authorities, which have led to severe cutbacks in local food inspections.

Professor Elliott does not pull any punches. He states on page 49 of his report:

“Enforcement activity is…very vulnerable when local authority services are cut to the bone.”

He also draws attention to the average 27% reduction in the number of trading standards officers dealing with food matters, and to the 40% cut in overall trading standards services during the lifetime of this Government. Concerns for consumer protection and for the reputation of the industry are heightened when, as Elliott notes, the number of public analyst laboratories has been reduced from 10 in 2010 to six today. I simply say to the Minister that he has his work cut out if he is to explain how, against the background of cuts in front-line FSA inspection, front-line local authority inspection and laboratory facilities, he can do what Elliott asks and put the consumer first.

Given that we are now four and a half years into this Government, the Minister must explain why the UK has been behind the curve and behind European counterparts in establishing a food crime unit. That led Elliott to note that the Dutch crime unit could find no one in the UK—whether in a crime unit or anywhere else—to speak to when the horsemeat scandal happened. Had the Government’s reluctance to place any burdens on industry given them an aversion to being proactive in such a way? Had Ministers looked at the threat of food adulteration and food crime since taking office? I understand that the Minister was not in office for the whole of that time, but I am sure that he has discussed it with his officials.

One month after the horsemeat scandal erupted, a survey by the consumer organisation Which? found that six in 10 shoppers had changed their shopping habits, and that trust had fallen by a quarter. A year after the scandal, an Ipsos MORI survey showed that 95% of consumers remembered the horsemeat scandal. As has already been mentioned, the latest polling by Which? has shown this month that 55% of people are worried that a food fraud incident will happen again, that a third of them do not have confidence that the food they buy contains what it says on the label—by the way, that goes up to half for people who have takeaways on a Saturday night—and a quarter maintain that they have changed the type of meat they buy. Seven out of 10 consumers have told Which? that more action needs to be taken. The damage is lasting, so we need to get this right.

Let me ask the Minister some initial questions; in the months to come, we will return with more. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton suggested, will the Minister publish a detailed timetable for the implementation of every recommendation in the Elliott review so that the Government’s warm words can be measured against actual implementation? Will he give assurances that the resources for the new crime unit and the crime framework to go with it can be found from within existing FSA funding?

Will the Minister now apologise on behalf of the Government for the decision to fragment the responsibilities of the FSA, or does he continue to ignore the argument that that decision damaged its power, authority and independence? Does he accept the Elliott proposal that the FSA should continue as a non-ministerial department so as to retain its necessary independence from the Government? How does he answer critics who believe that the FSA has gone beyond the necessary close co-operation with the industry and is now too close to the industry to be a useful and critical friend? The recent decision not to publish campylobacter rates is one such example.

Bearing in mind the need for a more robust and rigorous FSA based on the report’s proposals and the need for the FSA to have the effective and independent leadership identified by the Elliott report, will the Minister give us an update on the search for a new chair? Will he confirm that the person shortly to be proposed as chair will appear before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee before final confirmation in post?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Heath Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) was able to write to the hon. Gentleman to reassure him about that approach and I am pleased with the welcome that the hon. Gentleman has given it. We have debated the matter on many occasions. We will now discuss how that change will come in and will introduce it as soon as we possibly can.

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

Will the Minister arrange for the Secretary of State to maintain the closest possible contact with Somerset colleagues about Somerset? In particular, can we have an early meeting to discuss the two outstanding issues: the sluice on the Parrett and the Somerset rivers authority?

[Dan Rogerson]

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