Oral Answers to Questions

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of keeping costs down while we decarbonise. The Department has always made it clear that every opportunity to decarbonise at the lowest cost to consumers will be taken. It is my view that leaving the EU will enable us to do that to an even greater extent than we have in the past.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Since 1990 the UK has decreased emissions by a third more than the EU average. We have now set a target for 2030 that implies a decrease of about double that which the EU put into the Paris INDCs—intended nationally determined contributions. Does the Minister agree that the real concern about Brexit might be that we will no longer be able to influence the EU to make more progress in decarbonisation?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am entirely clear: European countries remain our friends and great allies, and we will continue to work with them. Leaving the European Union does not mean that we are suddenly leaving Europe in any sense, so it is my expectation and anticipation that we will remain closely aligned on global issues such as climate change, and that we will continue to play a leading role in the world’s attempts to tackle that great threat.

EU Referendum: Energy and Environment

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that position, which will no doubt give the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) as much comfort as it has given me.

I want to make some more comments on investor confidence, which is central to this afternoon’s debate. Since the referendum, I have met investors from across the energy spectrum: nuclear, renewables, energy efficiency—all areas in which we need investment. Yesterday, I spoke to members of the managing board of Siemens to reassure them of the commitments that I am setting out here today. Officials across my Department have regularly kept in contact with investors and energy companies to reiterate that message.

The message from business is clear. It still sees the UK is a great place to invest in. Britain remains one of the best places in the world in which to live and to do business. We have the rule of law, low taxes, a strong finance sector and a talented, creative and determined workforce. We have to build on those strengths, not turn away from them. Those factors combine with a clear energy policy framework and a strong investment-friendly economy to make the UK an ideal place to attract much-needed energy investment. The UK has been the fourth highest investor in clean energy globally for the past five years. This is investment in the energy infrastructure that we need to underpin a strong competitive economy, and this Government will do all we can to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place for investment. Whatever settlement we decide on in the coming months, those fundamentals will remain unchanged.

I want to underline our commitment to addressing climate change. Climate change has not been downgraded as a threat. It remains one of the most serious long-term risks to our economic and national security. I attended the world-class team of British diplomats at last year’s Paris climate talks. Our efforts were central to delivering that historic deal, and the UK will not step back from that international leadership. We must not turn our back on Europe or the world. Our relationships with the United States, China, India and Japan and with other European countries will stand us in strong stead as we deliver on the promises made in Paris. At the heart of that commitment is our own Climate Change Act 2008. The Act was not imposed on us by the EU; it was entirely home grown. It was also a world first and a prime example of the UK setting the agenda that others are now following. And let us not forget that it was delivered with unanimous support from right across the House.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Secretary of the State will be aware that the fifth carbon budget means that the UK is reducing carbon at a faster rate than any country in the EU and significantly faster than the EU’s intended nationally determined contribution put forward in Paris. Is the risk of Brexit not that we might go back on our climate change objectives, but that we will not bring the rest of Europe with us, given the leadership position that we have taken and the fact that we are moving so much more quickly than they are?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend, who knows this area so well, has raised an important point. I hope to be able to reassure him that we will be able to continue to use our influence to encourage the European Union to raise its game and to reach the high standards that we do, but I agree with him that this will be an additional concern, on which we will have to work to try to deliver.

It is true that we had to make tough decisions on renewable energy when we came into office last year, reflecting the need to cut costs and the need for technologies to stand on their own two feet. I will not shy away from taking tough decisions. We need technologies that are low cost and clean, to protect bill payers.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin- Khan), whose speech was excellent, in both content and delivery. My son is a junior hospital doctor and I know how hard doctors work. We need more scientists and doctors in the House of Commons, so for that reason, too, she is really welcome. I congratulate her.

The implication of the Opposition’s motion is that somehow, by leaving the EU, we will become the dirty man of Europe and that, without the glad hand of European legislation, we will go back to our dirty ways.

I want to talk about climate change police, particularly how far ahead we are of the rest of the EU, and how Europe’s slow pace is causing increasing difficulty for the rest of the world.

People are right that environmental protection and policy is cross-border. We produce 1.3% of global emissions. Since 1990, the UK has decreased its carbon emissions by 28% and the EU has decreased carbon emissions by 21%. That figure includes our contribution of 28%, so the rest of the members have done a bit worse; although that in itself is not a disaster. What is extraordinary is the variability between different countries in Europe on carbon emissions since 1990: Austria has increased emissions by 14%, Ireland by 7% and Poland by 14%; Germany has decreased emissions, but not by anything like as much as we have. It is really quite bizarre.

Quite often, people talk about countries such as China as being the issue when it comes to emissions. However, the reality is that the Chinese are taking the whole issue a great deal more seriously than a number of OECD countries are. China has 40 to 50 nuclear power stations under construction. It increased its proportion of energy from nuclear by 30% last year, and from renewables by 20%. That is a huge effort. The truth is—

[Philip Boswell]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that China is making commendable progress in respect of nuclear construction. However, is it not also the case that, along with India, it is constructing up to several thousand coal-fired power stations? The argument, as was well put by the Prime Minister of India, Mr Modi, is this: why should we come to the banquet, have only a dessert and be presented with the bill?

[David Mowat]

I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, and that is why we have to cut more slack for these developing countries. I am going to come on to talk about coal, but in November the Secretary of State in this country said that we were going to phase out coal by 2025. The following week, Germany commissioned a brand new lignite-burning power station. That sort of behaviour plays to the point just made by the hon. Member from the Scottish nationalists that it is very hard to lecture the Indians and the Chinese on coal when there are countries in Europe, this year, commissioning brand new coal power stations.

We have talked about how important Paris is. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made the point that we may well be close to 1.5% anyway—it is a statistical model and it is quite hard to tell. However, the fact is that the INDC that the EU, including the UK, put into the Paris commitment is approximately half as onerous in terms of decarbonisation as that which the Climate Change Act 2008 requires us to do in the UK. We will reduce our emissions by the fifth carbon budget by 57% in 2030. The EU offering was a 40% reduction, which includes the UK’s 57%. We are seeing the result of this already. Last year, carbon emissions across the EU as a whole increased by 0.7%. I accept that that was only one year, and that this is not something to be looked at one year at a time, but 18 of the 28 countries in the EU either had no decrease in emissions or an increase. For completeness, in that same time the UK reduced its emissions by around 3%. Those statistics are from Eurostat.

I want to talk more widely about why it is that the EU has lost its way on climate policy. There is a fixation on coal in the EU. Germany is often regarded as being a leader on renewables, and it is; Germany has far more renewables than we have. However, it also has much higher carbon emissions than we do. The reason for that is the coal that it has: Germany has four times as much coal as the UK, and it is not four times more populous. There are parallels in other countries. Does it matter? Perhaps not, in one sense; someone has to lead, and it is us. However, the DECC website shows that electricity prices in the UK for domestic consumers are something like 50% above the EU mean—our gas prices are not—and our industrial prices are about 80% higher. Why does that matter? I come from a constituency in the north of England, where we still try to manufacture things. It is very hard to talk about rebalancing the economy and the northern powerhouse on the back of differentially high energy prices.

I do not think that the EU has taken the position that it has on purpose. So why is it that the policy objectives of reducing carbon have not been realised? The first error that was made—this is true of a lot of directives—is that there was confusion as to the target. A lot of the early EU directives were about renewables and not decarbonisation, which is a secondary target. The consequence is that CCS, which we have talked about, was not emphasised, gas as a transition fuel was not emphasised and nuclear was not emphasised—the biggest omission of all. Of all EU electricity, 30% comes from nuclear. The fact that, for many countries in the EU, that is not even regarded as part of the solution is quite bizarre.

Two or three hon. Members this afternoon talked about CCS, and I regret that the UK is not pushing ahead with that. However, it really beggars belief to say that that is a European issue when a number of countries in the EU, including Germany, have banned CCS. It is not a question of not developing it; they have banned it.

The other error that the EU has made is to create a general parity between different types of fossil fuels. Coal and gas are very different indeed in terms of their materiality on this. One reason why the UK does a lot better than the EU is the amount of gas that we use and the fact that we have displaced coal with gas. I like to quote this statistic: if the world were to replace all the coal that we currently burn with gas, that would be equivalent to five times, or a factor of 500%, more renewables. To pretend that that is not part of the solution is just plain wrong. One reason that people regard it as not being part of the solution is that the pathway has been mistaken for the objective.

Yes, at some point we need to get to an emissions level below that which is afforded by gas, but the truth is that emissions are cumulative. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said that we may well be close to the 1.5% in terms of particulates and all that goes with them. That is true and it is a cumulative effect. Carbon does not go out of the atmosphere for a very long time. It is not just about pathway. For that reason, gas should have been far more of a factor in this than it has been.

[Geraint Davies]

On the related matter of where we are, is the hon. Member as concerned as I am about the leakages of methane from fracking, which are 5%, given that methane is 83 times worse than CO₂ in global warming?

[David Mowat]

I recognise the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. If methane were being released from fracking at that level, it would represent that percentage. However, I do not think that that is the case in the United States of America. I am prepared to be corrected on that, but I do not think anything like that amount of methane is being emitted by fracking in the United States of America.

[Geraint Davies]

I can provide the hon. Member with satellite evidence of this. The figure is somewhere between 3% and 8%, with the best judgment being that it is 5%. That makes it two and a half times worse than coal in terms of global warming.

[David Mowat]

I do not accept that that is true, but if it was, it would apply to fracked gas only and not gas generally. Most of our gas is liquefied natural gas from Norway and Russia. That said, various papers have been written on the amount of methane coming out of wells in the United States, and I do not think that the evidence is quite as the hon. Gentleman said. I think we should leave it at that for now, and maybe have a coffee afterwards.

The other thing that was not done was that the EU has no price for carbon. The emissions trading system was an attempt to put in place a price for carbon. However, because of the recession, carbon permits became very cheap indeed and it became no issue at all. We in the UK then established a carbon floor price. The EU Parliament debated that and it was blocked by MEPs, particularly those from Germany, so there is no price of carbon in the EU, which would have fixed some of this.

The result of all this is a policy that overly emphasises renewables as a solution, without taking into account some of the other things that we could have been doing, such as nuclear, CCS and the displacement of coal with gas. Result: we see in Germany a country with very high renewables, but also very high carbon emissions. Something like 15% of Germany’s total energy and 30% of its electricity come from renewables, but because of the amount of coal it produces, its carbon emissions are a third higher per unit of GDP and a third higher per capita than those of the UK.

So, there is an issue with our leaving the EU. It is not an issue of us learning from the EU how to reduce carbon emissions; it is a question of the EU not being held to account for the level of emissions that many of those countries are currently going on with. If Brexit has got a downside in terms of environmental policy around climate change, it is that the leadership that the UK has been able to demonstrate—so far, perhaps unsuccessfully—to the EU on climate targets will not necessarily be so evident in future.

Climate Change and Flooding

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree. The renewables sector needs certainty and it has had the rug whisked away from underneath it. There is some incredibly innovative work being done. I visited Ecotricity in Stroud yesterday, to hear about Dale Vince’s proposals not just for building on his excellent work in the renewables sector but for going far beyond that. We must encourage the sector. This is where the high-tech, high-skilled, well-paid jobs of the future are and the Government ought to be doing more to encourage them.

We must acknowledge that the individual pledges made at Paris do not add up to a commitment to keep temperature rises below 2°. We must keep asking what more we can do by way of mitigation and consider what further adaptation to climate change is needed. Domestically, it is clear that the UK is not doing enough. Contributing to the global climate fund does not mean the UK can absolve itself of all responsibility, or pass the buck to developing nations.

While the international community is moving forward, the UK has gone backwards. The Government have axed the carbon capture and storage fund, worth billions of pounds. They have blocked new wind farms and cut energy efficiency programmes drastically by 80% and they propose cutting support for solar power by 90%. They are also selling off the UK Green Investment Bank without protecting its green mandate. They are increasing taxes on our more efficient cars and they are scrapping the zero-carbon standard for new homes. Their preoccupation with fossil fuels and fracking, as I mentioned, means they have threatened the future of our renewable energy industry and we have lost thousands of green jobs.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that the UK is not doing enough. Can she tell the House of one other OECD country that has reduced its carbon emissions by as much as the UK since 1990—just one other OECD country that has done that?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As the hon. Gentleman says, the UK has a proud record on tackling climate change, not least due to the leadership shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) with the groundbreaking Climate Change Act 2008. However, we are now coasting on that historical record and we need to do much more. We are not on course to meet our targets, so we need to do more.

The chairman of the Committee on Climate Change had no alternative but to conclude last month that the Government’s existing energy policy was clearly failing, and the CBI has said that British businesses need clarity. Businesses need to know that the Government are serious about climate change and will not make superficial claims about being green, only to U-turn on key environmental policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I do not have a direct constituency interest in this subject, but I want to talk about Paris. It is a pleasure to follow the last two Labour speakers, the right hon. Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). Much as I commend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for the work she has done, I am afraid that my analysis of Paris is not quite so sanguine as the opinions we have so far heard.

It is not true that the INDCs add up to a 2.7 °C limit. That analysis is somewhat dishonest because it is based only on contributions continuing further on a basis to which countries have not committed themselves. The right hon. Member for Don Valley called Paris a “universally binding” agreement, but it is not binding on anybody. That does not mean it is not a good start, and we have to start somewhere, but the fundamental point is that if the world had adopted the Climate Change Act in the way the shadow Secretary of State said, we would be on track for a rise of 1.5 °C. The United Nations framework convention on climate change says that to get to the limit of a 1.5 °C rise the world must reduce carbon emissions by between 75% and 90%, while the Climate Change Act states 80%. A fair challenge would be that developing countries find it much harder to do than developed countries. I accept that China, India and such countries need more slack, so the implication is that we perhaps need to go further, which is where some of the right hon. Lady’s numbers come from.

I want to spend the minutes available to me in analysing the performance of the developed countries at Paris, and particularly of the EU. One of the most startling factors about the INDCs that were put into the mix in Paris is that the EU submission for a 40% reduction over 40 years—1% a year, as it were—is 33% slower than the reduction demanded by the Climate Change Act and its resulting budgets. That is not all, however, because if we take out the UK bit of that EU INDC, the implication is that the rate of reduction will be between 40% and 45% slower than that for the UK. That is odd: what do other EU countries find so difficult about reducing emissions that we apparently do not find difficult? Parts of the EU are developing, relatively speaking, because they are catching up in terms of GDP. It might be reasonable for countries such as Poland and Romania to be given more slack. However, the truth is that countries such as Romania have made the most rapid reductions, so that is not the issue. Romania has made big reductions, because the 1990 baseline coincided with a period when its industry needed to be sorted out.

The issue is in the developed countries such as Austria, which has increased its emissions by 20% since 1990, and Ireland, Holland, Spain and Portugal, none of which have reduced their emissions since 1990. The House has criticised the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for a lack of ambition, yet we are part of an EU submission to a global conference that puts up with that kind of thing. I ask her to address why that can happen and what sanctions there are on those countries within the EU aegis that can stop it happening.

There are reasons why it is happening. Some countries have banned nuclear power. Some have banned carbon capture and storage. It is not that they have just not invested in it—it is illegal in some countries. CCS is illegal in Germany and it is building brand new unabated coal power stations. Its emissions are a third higher than ours per capita and per unit of GDP.

[Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Mowat]

Yes, thank you.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wonder whether he could expand further on the points he is making, because I am finding them most interesting.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is always a team player. The extra minute will be put to great use.

The EU, taken collectively and not including us, failed abysmally to put forward at Paris anything close to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster North said, probably rightly, would need to be delivered to achieve 1.5°. We have to understand what the sanctions are for that, but the reasons are many and varied.

The EU got completely bogged down, as Members of this House sometimes do, in a fixation with renewables and renewables targets, rather than thinking about a carbon reduction target. Countries have put in place considerable renewables, but continue to burn coal at scale. The truth is that if we replaced coal with gas globally, it would be equivalent to increasing the renewables in the world by a factor of five. There are many points like that.

The fundamental point, which the Secretary of State will have to address in her high ambition coalition, which presumably does not contain Austria, is that we must ensure some fairness. Otherwise, places such as Redcar and Motherwell will have to get used to what has happened to those places, and that really is not right.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

Ministers have been on the ground across the country at various events. I visited a community to talk about how it was affected during the east coast flooding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also visited a number of communities. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the money that is available to help people will be there for all communities, no matter where they are in the country.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T7. The Minister will be aware of the Arpley landfill site in my constituency. He may also be aware that planning permission for continued use has now expired, yet neighbouring councils such as Merseyside, Halton and Cheshire West continue to use it for the waste that they will not recycle or incinerate. Will the Minister consider issuing guidance to those councils so that if they will not upgrade their disposal mechanisms, they will at least dump the waste somewhere that has planning permission?

[Dan Rogerson]

Sites such as that in my hon. Friend’s constituency need an environmental permit from the Environment Agency and planning permission from the local authority. There is an environmental permit in place for that site. Any planning considerations would be a matter for the local authority.

Flooding (Somerset)

David Mowat Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I assure him that Natural England will be involved in the discussions that start tomorrow. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), will chair the first meeting to deliver the plan within six weeks.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Environment Agency correctly identifies housing as the principal driver of where flood defences should be built, and the Secretary of State saw the scheme in Warrington that was completed three months ago and prevented the flooding of 1,500 houses. For the avoidance of doubt, will he assure the House that there will be no knee-jerk reaction to change criteria after the tragedy in Somerset?

[Mr Paterson]

I saw the real value of those schemes when my hon. Friend kindly invited me to his constituency, and I assure him that it is our intention to continue similar schemes around the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think we will take that as a no. He is not suggesting anything of the sort, but simply seeking to put his own position on the record, for which we are grateful.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

4. What plans he has for the future structure of the water and sewerage industry.

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

The Government’s water White Paper set out our vision for a resilient and sustainable water industry that is able to attract long-term investment. We are committed to measured reform to protect the strengths of the current system. Our draft Water Bill includes proposals to deliver evolutionary reform of the water sector. This will benefit customers and enable new players and new ways of thinking to enter the market.

[David Mowat]

The UK regulated asset base has been a great driver of inward investment into the UK for infrastructure projects. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the draft Bill that will undermine the size of that asset base, and will he consider using the regulated asset model to bring in money for badly needed flood defences?

[Richard Benyon]

I can confirm that the golden thread running through our water White Paper, all our policies since then and, in particular, the Water Bill underpins our commitment to continued investment in this sector. It has benefited from £108 billion of low-cost investment over the past 22 years, and we want to see that outstanding success continue. I note what my hon. Friend says about the plans to extend the model to flood defences. That proposal has been put by one or two water companies. We do not propose to bring it forward at this time, but we are always open to considering such matters.

Arpley Landfill Site

David Mowat Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I thank the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), for the work done so far within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this difficult issue, the future of the Arpley landfill tip. I am also grateful to his noble colleague, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, with whom I met recently to discuss some of the issues that continue to prevail.

I wish to make a number of specific points about the Arpley site before making some general remarks about UK landfill policy within the context of the EU. It continues to be a disappointment that we fail to emulate those more enlightened countries that have, to all intents and purposes, eradicated the need for landfill sites altogether.

By way of background, Arpley tip is situated very close to the centre of Warrington. The site is huge, covering some 400 acres, and is currently serviced by up to 250 20-tonne lorries every day—that is 500 separate journeys. Up to 10,000 residents live within a square mile of the site and many thousands more are impacted on by the lorries, which wind their way through residential streets to get to the site. The current licence expires in 2013, after nearly three decades, and the operators, WRG—Waste Recycling Group—have submitted an application to continue operations until 2025, a further 12 years.

Not content with having put a landfill site in the middle of a rapidly growing town, the town’s planners decided in their wisdom to build a new housing estate, Saxon Park, less than a quarter of a mile from the entrance to the site. Indeed, the new estate shares an access road with the lorries that move in and out every day. From talking to the residents who bought the houses, it would appear that many of them received verbal assurances that the site would be closed by 2013, which formed part of their decision to buy. In summary, there are two distinct problems with the site and I shall address them both. The first is the logistical disruption caused throughout Warrington by the 500 daily road movements through residential areas to get to the site. The second is the very existence of such a site at such a location.

I will consider the road issue first. The site’s central location means that all the waste brought into the estate must be driven through urban areas. Although Warrington is relatively well served by motorways, Arpley is not and trucks leaving the M62 have to travel through built-up residential suburbs for several miles. The site has a single access road, which is connected to another local road, the Old Liverpool road, that is simply not designed to take such a large volume of traffic at such a velocity, yet all vehicles entering the site must travel along it before turning into the access route. The Victorian-era houses are set quite close to the road and are vulnerable to vibrations. Several have suffered structural damage.

To have to put up with such problems during normal daytime hours is bad enough, but despite a ban on vehicles entering the site before 8 am, many lorries enter the access road well before 7 am and we have seen photographs of parked-up trucks taken as early as 6.45 am. Given that the site operates on a Saturday, that means that residents in the Sankey Bridges area have their sleep patterns disturbed six out of seven days every week as well as having to endure all the dirt, flies and smells associated with a landfill site of this size. In fairness, the operator, WRG, has recognised the problem of unco-ordinated road movements and has proposed a new one-way system for trucks. However, even if that can be properly enforced, it brings additional problems because although those on the busiest part of the route will get some relief, many others will be blighted more than they were previously. It is a question of waking up Peter so that Paul can have a lie-in.

The real solution would be for WRG to use either rail or the ship canal to get the waste to its destination. Planning permission exists for a rail head on the site, but the site operator consistently refuses to make use of it, arguing that its suppliers do not have the facilities to transport waste in that manner. That is a circular argument because suppliers will not invest if they know that there are no reciprocal receiving facilities. A further solution could be to make use of the new facilities provided by port Warrington and the ship canal, although that would take longer to put into place. The reluctance of the site operator to entertain either of those solutions is disappointing and unacceptable.

The real issue at stake concerns the site itself, not just these logistical considerations. It simply cannot be right that a large district is blighted in this way given that from 2013 none of Warrington’s waste will go to landfill either in Arpley or anywhere else. I will return to that point later. First, I want to talk about a development that will exacerbate this issue. WRG proposes to reduce the overall footprint of the site, keeping it away from the end nearest to Saxon Park and stacking the waste higher. Obviously, that is good in that it keeps the waste away from houses, but WRG will gain because such stacking will increase the pressure and result in more landfill gas being produced.

Why does the stacking matter? It matters because previous safety concerns regarding the site will be exacerbated by such major restructuring works. At some point in the mid-1990s, several hundred cattle carcases that were either infected or believed to be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy were dumped at Arpley—in many cases illegally. It now appears that the current site operator has no idea where those carcases were buried or what their condition is. No definitive research exists on the potential for prions from such carcases to contaminate soil and groundwater, but the best scientific advice is that human exposure to such carcases should be kept to a minimum. Indeed, the Government’s own adviser, Professor Smith, the chair of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, recently expressed disquiet about the safety of landfill sites that might have been contaminated in that way. In addition to the risks from animal carcases, Arpley produces other dioxins and poisons such as mercury. As was confirmed in a letter from the Environment Agency in March 2011, no emissions limits for those dioxins and poisons exist, which is concerning. Neither the status quo nor the stacking proposal that could make it worse are acceptable.

I want to talk about landfill policy more generally because an overall solution to this issue will be realised only when we markedly reduce the amount of landfill in the UK. Our track record in the UK is very weak. We send 50% of our waste to landfill, whereas the figure in Germany is 3%, in Holland it is 5%, in Sweden it is 5% and in Denmark it is 5%. Even France, which is a relatively poor performer, sends only 30% of its waste to landfill. Why do all those countries outperform us? First, let me make it clear that it is not because they recycle more—at least not principally so. Under successive Governments, we have increased the amount we recycle from 11% to about 45%. Even Germany recycles only about 55%. No, we are unique in western Europe in utilising so little of our waste to generate energy either from combustion or from anaerobic digestion.

The energy that could be produced in that way is local and relatively green. An oft-quoted example is Denmark in which every new housing estate has combined heat and power so that residents use their own waste to provide their own energy. Government Ministers talk about the hierarchy of waste with recycling being best, energy from waste being next and landfill being worst, but only the first part of that hierarchy is seriously attempted in the UK. I believe the problem is partly that some elements of the environment lobby, including Friends of the Earth, appear to believe that combustion is as bad as landfill. They are wrong to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and if they want to see how wrong they are, let them come to Arpley and see the landfill for themselves.

I make it clear to the Minister that this is not a plea for an incinerator in my constituency; nor am I trying to claim that incineration is more desirable than recycling. What I am saying is that burning waste and harnessing the energy is infinitely preferable to putting it into big holes in the ground. The fact remains that best-practice countries such as Germany recycle more and combust more than the UK, and that must be the way forward.

A recent report produced by the North West Regional Technical Advisory Body on Waste concluded that in 2008 waste from Warrington represented less than 10% of the waste sent to Arpley. A staggering 90% comes from outside the borough. I quote from the report:

“Warrington remains an anomaly, accepting waste that is vastly disproportionate to its own arisings.”

Furthermore, from next year even that tiny percentage will cease. The site will only receive waste from other parts of the north-west of the UK, mainly Liverpool and Manchester. In summary, despite Warrington’s managing to reduce the amount of waste it sends to landfill, we will be punished because neighbouring authorities have failed to do the same.

At one level, I am very encouraged by the new provisions in the Localism Act 2011, which I believe will introduce a new duty for local authorities to co-operate with regard to waste. I look forward to seeing how it can alleviate the issue.

I thank the Minister for listening patiently on a Thursday night with a one-line Whip. My constituents and I will be grateful for any words of support he can offer us. We shall be interested to hear what he has to say about four specific issues. If there are points that he cannot address today, perhaps he could respond to us in writing.

First, there is a hierarchy of waste—recycling is better than incineration and incineration is better than landfill—yet progress from landfill appears painfully slow. Could the Minister update us on his targets and progress? In particular, what more can the Government do to ensure that we begin to emulate the best in Europe in terms of anaerobic digestion and energy from waste—both in community-based and larger installations?

Secondly, given the general and clear direction of the Localism Act, can the Minister give an indication of what that might mean to a town where councillors of all parties are opposed to the granting of a new licence? If localism is to be meaningful on the ground, that must be a significant consideration in any planning appeal.

Thirdly, given that from 2013 Warrington itself will send no waste to landfill, how will that consideration be factored into the planning appeal process? We talk about the duty to co-operate, so surely that must be relevant. A town that produces no landfill waste should not be a dustbin for others.

Fourthly, will the Minister give me an assurance that the Environment Agency will be proactive on Arpley and satisfy itself that there is monitoring of the cattle carcases and of potential BSE issues? Furthermore, will he ensure that mercury and dioxin levels are monitored properly and that any risks are dealt with fast? In particular, can he give an assurance that a new licence will not be issued unless such checks are stringently and explicitly made?

Finally, I invite the Minister to visit the site with me and to meet some of the 10,000 residents affected by it. It cannot be right that in the 21st century a 400-acre site of that type is located so close to so many people who just want to live their lives. Enough is enough.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on obtaining the debate. I gather that he was supposed to be having a debate in Westminster Hall on the Arpley landfill site but lost the opportunity when the House prorogued. I am pleased to have the chance to respond to the serious points he has made, and to recognise how diligently he has represented the interests of his constituents, including as he rightly said, holding a meeting with my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. In regard to my hon. Friend’s invitation to me to visit Arpley, I am sure that I would thoroughly enjoy it, but I think I must defer to my noble Friend, who is the responsible Minister, as my hon. Friend well knows. That would be more appropriate, although there may be issues of propriety, given that the application is under consideration.

As my hon. Friend may appreciate, I may fail to respond to some of the points that he has raised; I certainly cannot pass judgment on the relative merits of the proposals made by WRG because, as he obviously is aware, the proposals are largely a matter for the relevant planning authority—in this case Warrington borough council—and they must be based on the merits of the application. They are also, as my hon. Friend said, matters for the Environment Agency, which regulates the operations at Arpley landfill through an environmental permit granted to the operator. The decisions made by planning authorities and the Environment Agency are also potentially open to appeal by the applicant. It is therefore important that Ministers, both in the Department for Communities and Local Government and DEFRA, remain impartial in case they are called upon at a later stage in an appellate role.

I also emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is the planning permission that is due to expire in 2013. The licence that he mentioned is, in fact, an environmental permit and that will not expire. Environmental legislation ensures that once granted, operators cannot rid themselves of their obligation to manage the site, so permits remain in force until they are surrendered and sites are returned to a satisfactory state. However, it is likely that the planning application, if granted, would require WRG to apply for a variation to its existing permit to ensure that any risks are reassessed and that appropriate measures are put in place to mitigate that risk.

I fully recognise the concerns, expressed by my hon. Friend, of those living very close to the Arpley landfill site and who may be faced with the prospect of a 12-year extension to the operations there. I am sure that my constituents would have very similar views—and yours, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. Residents living near the site—particularly those living in new housing developments built in the expectation that the site was nearing the end of its life—will perfectly naturally and understandably worry about the continued potential problems and the nuisance from traffic movements, noise, odour and so on from tipping, although I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer to the applicant’s proposals to alter traffic movements.

Decisions about the grant of planning permission are always in the first instance a matter for the relevant local authority, acting in accordance with national planning policy. It is during the planning process that concerns, many of which my hon. Friend has expressed, such as the height and the contouring of the site, should be considered, as well as issues such as the routing of traffic, the positioning of site entrances from the public highway and the opportunities for alternative transport by road and rail.

The Environment Agency is charged, along with other bodies, to protect human health and the environment, not just during the operation of the site but also for many years after the site closes. Modern-day landfill sites are subject to stringent technical standards to provide long-term containment of pollutants. Pollution control monitoring of such things as leachate—contaminated water on the site—and the capture and treatment of landfill gas produced from the breakdown of biodegradable waste are all part of that. Sites will remain regulated by the agency after final closure to ensure that the pollution control systems remain operational for the long-term aftercare period needed for landfill sites.

Tipping at landfills is carried out to achieve optimum waste densities in a site, so that its slopes are stable and encourage even settlement of the contours over time. Many factors, such the nature of the waste and the moisture content, determine the rate of landfill gas production. It is not just the issue of pressure, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important to capture and treat landfill gas—first, because it reduces the harmful greenhouse gas emissions of methane, and secondly, because it is a form of energy recovery from waste that can be utilised.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, the proposed restructuring of the site would involve over-tipping of some areas previously tipped and completed, but contrary to his understanding, we understand that this would definitely not involve disturbance of the Birchwood area where the carcases of cattle suspected of having BSE were deposited under direction from the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If there was such a prospect, clearly the Environment Agency would have to consult partner agencies, such as the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, in assessing any risk from the disposal of suspected BSE cattle in the early 1990s.

The Government consider waste planning authorities to be best placed to create and to deliver waste management strategies for their areas. That means making sure that waste plans inform and are informed by relevant documents, such as the municipal waste management strategy, as well as by the relevant waste collection and disposal authorities working together—and demonstrating how they have done so under the duty to co-operate provisions of the Localism Act 2011—so as to provide effective and sustainable cross-boundary arrangements to meet their needs.

My hon. Friend challenged the Government’s record on landfill, but I assure him that we have been reducing landfill for some time. The number of operational landfill sites in England and Wales has fallen from more than 2,000 when the landfill directive was implemented in 2002 to fewer than 500 now. The amount of waste being landfilled has continued to fall year on year since 2002-03 and is now about 45% lower than a decade ago. We are already meeting our 2013 target to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. As my hon. Friend rightly said, considerably reduced landfilling helps to explain why many of the landfill sites that remain in operation are not being completed and restored within the time scales originally envisaged, or, as in the present case, are seeking extensions to their period of operation.

Landfill should be the waste management option of last resort and be used only for wastes for which there is no alternative use. The measures outlined in our “Review of Waste Policy in England”, published last June, will play a significant role in pushing wastes up the hierarchy and away from landfill by encouraging the right infrastructure, markets and culture to enable us to treat waste more fully as a resource. I have often said that one man’s waste is another man’s raw material.

Prevention also has a great part to play, and the amount of waste produced is 6% lower than in 2006. The landfill tax—£64 per tonne now, rising to £80 per tonne in 2014-15—remains a key driver to divert waste from landfill, but we want to do better than just diverting waste. We can be more optimistic about recycling—according to the latest figures, we recycle 42.5% of waste. We should also be using a range of alternative methods, including, as my hon. Friend rightly emphasised, energy from waste and anaerobic digestion, adopting the range of options that work best locally—although, as I think he implied, we should not underestimate local opposition to power from waste or anaerobic digestion plants. I have had to deal with both in my constituency.

Even with that push, however, it would remain likely that some waste that could be put to better use would end up in landfill. The introduction of additional restrictions may therefore be warranted to achieve our ultimate aim. As a starting point, we will consult later this year on whether to introduce a restriction on the landfilling of wood waste, with the aim of diverting the still substantial tonnages that end up in landfill to better uses up the waste hierarchy, and delivering clear environmental benefits. I cannot understand why people pour wood into landfill sites.

[David Mowat]

The Minister says we are making progress on reducing the amount of landfill, which is true, but it still accounts for about 50% of the total, versus 3% in Germany and 5% in the Benelux countries. Will he confirm that the Government’s long-term plan is to achieve similar figures in this country? That is a long way from where we are now.

[Mr Paice]

I can confirm that it is the long-term plan of the Government to eliminate landfill altogether; my hon. Friend is right to challenge us on that front. On the question of why we are well behind a number of other countries, I will not make excuses for the past, but we have historically had a much larger reliance on landfill sites, because we had a high number of mineral industries, and quarries that required a form of restoration and that were obvious sites for tipping. We also had the natural protection afforded by our largely clay subsoil. We start from further behind, but that is no excuse for not continuing to do better.

I hope that I have covered a number of my hon. Friend’s points. He asked me four questions at the end of his speech. I hope that I have answered the first point, which was about our ambition for waste prevention and the waste hierarchy. Our measures are already beginning to bear fruit, and we want the pace of change to continue and increase. On the second and third points, I defer to the Department for Communities and Local Government on interpretation of the Localism Act 2011, but on meeting the proximity principle—that is, recovering waste at the nearest appropriate facility—I am afraid that there is no expectation that each waste planning authority will deal solely with its own waste.

On the fourth point, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Environment Agency will assess closely any application to vary the permit, and will satisfy itself that the proposals do not result in previously deposited waste posing an unacceptable risk to health or the environment. It will ensure that the permit provides the necessary monitoring of pollutants likely to arise in landfill. My hon. Friend has asked a number of parliamentary questions on the subject. I hope that the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), have addressed some of his concerns. The Environment Agency not only takes notice of what comes from a landfill site, but studies what goes in. From that, it can derive some evidence or indication of what likely pollutants might arise. For instance, there will be dioxins only if there is a significant level of chlorine products in landfill. That is something that the Environment Agency monitors.

I would like to re-emphasise a point that is of huge concern to me as Minister with responsibility for agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South mentioned the knowledge of where carcases likely to be infected with BSE are. As I have said to him, the Environment Agency believes that it knows where they are, and it has identified that the proposed changes are not in that area. If my hon. Friend has any evidence that might disprove that, clearly I would welcome seeing it, because obviously we want to make absolutely sure that there is no risk from that.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising his concerns, which I am sure would have been raised by other Members faced with a similar situation. He has rightly, in the interests of his constituency, raised the problems, and today’s debate gave me the opportunity to provide some reassurance that we have systems that are able to strike an appropriate balance between meeting the needs of society on the one hand, and the protection of people and the environment on the other. We are making great strides in dealing with waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy—a point that he rightly reinforced—and intend to continue to do that. I hope that he can take some comfort from my remarks, and I congratulate him on the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the hon. Lady’s helpful clarification, because her concluding remarks were a little ambivalent.

Returning to DEFRA’s acceptance of some of our conclusions, some of the site-specific material has been moved to an annex that is part of the document that is not to be relied on by the decision maker in reaching a decision on a project. That meets, to some extent, our criticism about the inclusion of weak material on the Thames tunnel, as well as on Deephams sewage treatment works. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will also give us a status report on those treatment works.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

In the Select Committee’s consideration of the £50 reduction in the south-west, did it look at water poverty more generally across the United Kingdom, including whether other regions have more consumers in water poverty than the south-west, so that it might have been fairer for the money to have been allocated in a different way?

[Miss McIntosh]

In our report on the Thames tunnel, we did not consider aspects of affordability, which are rightly covered in an earlier report to which I will turn shortly.

I am delighted that DEFRA accepts that the remaining site-specific sections have been improved and that the Government have, as recommended by the Committee, moved to change the definitions in the Planning Act 2008 to include sewerage transfer and storage projects such as the Thames tunnel in the process for deciding applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Committee welcomes that. I hope that we have discharged our duties comprehensively, given that this was one of our first opportunities to do so under the Planning Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

Speaking in an entirely personal capacity, and looking at sustainable development and flood prevention, the one thing we could do today is to stop building on floodplains. Perhaps the House would like to unite around that and an amendment could be tabled to a future water Bill.

There are things that we can do now. There has been lots in the papers recently about water stress and scarcity, and drought. That will inevitably have an impact on homes. There is a risk of subsidence and there are reports of roads cracking. That obviously has insurance implications for householders and business properties, but also for highways. Again in a personal capacity, I challenge the Minister on how we will pay in those mostly rural areas for roads that are cracking now because of drought rather than the flood damage that occurred in the previous two years.

I welcome the fact that our report discusses the new responsibilities of the upper-tier authorities for flood and water management, and that funds are available. The Government response talks about providing the funding to lead local flood authorities through direct grants and says that that is expected to fund fully their new responsibilities under the Act. However, my local authority tells me that those moneys are not ring-fenced. If that is the case, and we are reducing, because of austerity, the money for the core tasks of the upper-tier authorities—county and unitary—that will pose real difficulty for them, and I put that to the Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned affordability. The Minister and others have been challenged about that in many forums, not only the Select Committee, but all-party groups. It is right that the Bill focuses on affordability for the south-west region. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have no connection with the south-west, other than hoping that I have many friends on both sides of the House who represent the region extremely ably. However, there is a particular issue in that the population is small and there is a heavy emphasis on fixed and lower incomes. As I said, the application of the EU drinking water directive, and especially the bathing water directive, posed enormous problems for the south-west.

I therefore welcome the fact that the Bill addresses affordability. I hope that when the House has ample time—I am sorry if it will not be this year; we keep hearing that something will happen in the coming weeks or the coming months—and the draft Bill is before us, we can address some of the other affordability problems and also a social tariff.

[David Mowat]

I have listened to the points about the south-west, and I, too, have no problem with the region being helped through the Bill. However, there is an issue about water poverty and in which regions it is greatest. There is a case for helping them, notwithstanding the specific problems that exist in the south-west. I believe that there is more water poverty in the north-west than the south-west, and there is therefore a case for doing something there at the same time.

[Miss McIntosh]

I do not want to rehearse the arguments I have just made, but every hon. Member could point to examples of water poverty. I am sure all of us have constituents who write to us or come to our surgeries to talk about the affordability of their bills. Dealing with that is the role of Ofwat. I should like to record my thanks to the chief executive, and more especially the chairman, of Ofwat for their work in that regard. They have a real role to play.

One other piece of unfinished business that I expect to be included in the draft water Bill—this was raised in the Committee’s scrutiny of future flood and water management legislation and the Government’s response—is the Gray review of regulatory aspects. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister confirms that that will be covered by the draft Bill, along with the Cave review, which is on aspects of competition—specifically, the level of competition that there will be—and the Walker review. In times of water stress and scarcity, it is important that we encourage people to use water sensibly and, as Ofwat and Anna Walker have frequently said, that we encourage households and businesses not to heat their water beyond the supply that they need, because doing so leads to unsustainable use.

Another issue pertains specifically to the Thames tunnel and more widely. The Committee is persuaded that the Thames tunnel is the best way to proceed for the purposes intended, because sustainable drainage systems were excluded. However, we just touched on how to prevent floods, and I hope the Minister can today report on progress on establishing sustainable drainage systems throughout England and Wales. Will he renew the commitment, or give us a once-and-for-all-time commitment, that the Government will end the automatic right to connect, which goes to the heart of water stress and scarcity? In Filey in my area, 300 houses will be built on a functional floodplain against the council’s advice. The field takes surface water surplus, but there is nowhere to displace it to. Yorkshire Water is trying hard to accommodate proper capacity and connection for those 300 extra homes without making others short of supply, but the area is not flush with water, if you will pardon the expression, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the debate and the opportunity to draw the Committee’s wider concerns to the House and the Minister. On the two specific points to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, I hope the Minister will confirm that there will be a debate on an amendable motion on the Floor of the House on the national policy statement on waste, and clarify what planning issue the Government will bring before the House.

Rio+20 Summit

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I shall start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for her passion, conviction and resolution in leading that Committee. I shall limit my observations to the opportunities and challenges to be faced in the transition to the green economy.

The forthcoming summit has two themes—the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development. These themes are in many respects the same as those of a conference outside Norwich that I shall be attending and speaking at this Thursday. The New Anglia local enterprise partnership is hosting a conference entitled “Norfolk and Suffolk— leading the green economy”. Its objective is to help secure a smooth transition to a green economy, which can bring significant benefits to East Anglia.

The LEP has been asked by the Government to take a UK lead in demonstrating how business can take advantage of the new markets for environmental goods and services, and to support the strong stance that the UK has taken nationally to reduce carbon and tackle climate change. The Government have given the LEP green economy pathfinder status and it is currently working up with business leaders and academics proposals that demonstrate how the green economy is vital to the UK economic recovery and to sustainable growth. In April the LEP will present to Government its manifesto, which will bring together a wide range of best practice studies, as well as some innovative thinking on how to put low carbon at the heart of business opportunity and success.

In my view, one role that the Government should be playing on the international stage at Rio is the same one as the New Anglia LEP is performing in this country. Rio provides us with the opportunity to showcase what the UK can do. We were at the forefront of the 19th- century industrial revolution. There is now the opportunity for us to play the same role in a 21st-century revolution, the transition to the green economy.

There are three advantages of green growth, the three Es—enhancing the environment, achieving a secure and stable energy supply, and creating new employment opportunities. First, on the environmental front, it is vital that we manage our natural resources in a prudent and responsible manner and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Given the vast offshore renewable resources and extensive maritime engineering expertise in the North sea off the East Anglian coast, the UK can be a prime beneficiary of clean energy projects.

Secondly, it is important that we have a secure supply of energy, and that we are in control of our own destiny and not reliant on fossil fuel imports. Thirdly, the move to the green economy creates significant employment opportunities. At present clean energy employs 250,000 people in the UK. With conducive Government policies this can grow to 500,000 by 2020. Moreover, retrofitting our houses through the forthcoming green deal provides the opportunity not only to make the country’s housing stock more energy efficient and to drive down utility bills, but to help rejuvenate our dormant manufacturing and construction industries.

Since May 2010 the Government have done much to promote the green economy. First, they have supported research and development through the proposed technology and innovation centre for renewable energy and the proposed five renewable obligation certificates that support and encourage wave and tidal technology.

Secondly, they have provided a new streamlined planning process for determining applications for large infrastructure projects, which so far appears to be working well, based on the feedback I have received from Scottish and Southern on its Galloper wind farm application and from East Anglia Offshore Wind on East Anglia ONE.

Thirdly, there have been important developments in investment in sustainable infrastructure, with regard to rail and the roll-out of superfast broadband across the country by 2015, and in encouraging proposals for investment in electricity infrastructure so that the demand for energy can be better managed through a smart grid, smart metering and, in due course, the development of a European super grid.

Fourthly, working with the private sector is vital if we are successfully to realise the opportunities presented by the green economy. On the East Anglian coast, the enterprise zone due to start in April in my constituency—in Lowestoft and adjoining Great Yarmouth—and the designation of the two ports as centres for offshore renewable engineering will provide businesses with much-needed support and will help to reinvigorate supply chains. Moreover, the green investment bank can act as a catalyst for private sector investment.

Fifthly, and most importantly, on skills and advancing education, the most important thing we can do is invest in people. It is vital that people have the necessary skills to take up the jobs that will be created in the green economy. The further education and apprenticeship policies that are being enthusiastically promoted by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning provide an ideal foundation on which to build. We also need to promote the teaching of science, technology, engineering and maths in our schools.

The Rio summit presents the UK with an opportunity to showcase what we have been doing to promote the green economy. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State should fly down to Rio, hopefully with the Prime Minister on the wing, to boast and to swank about the Government’s achievements. However, in a measured and constructive way she, with the Prime Minister by her side, can promote the green economy and show how a framework for sustainable development can be laid down. I also ask that she supports the UN Secretary-General’s “Sustainable Energy for All by 2030” initiative, which will be launched at the conference.

On the home front, the Government must finish the work they have started. There might be a temptation to water down the approach to sustainable development by adopting a “slightly green but business as usual” approach. This temptation must be resisted. Over the past 20 months the Government have successfully set out their stall, showing how they intend to move towards a green economy. The private sector has accepted the invitation to work with them to achieve that goal. The Government must not let the private sector down and must continue to work with it to bring to fruition the three objectives: nurturing and looking after the environment in a sustainable and responsible manner; achieving a low-carbon and secure energy supply with less price volatility; and creating new and exciting jobs that can play an important role in leading the economic recovery.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is using the terms “green economy” and “renewables” as though they were the same as decarbonisation. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) explained, we have to cut our carbon emissions by 80%, or even 90%, by 2050. Currently, about 2.5% of our energy comes from renewables. Does my hon. Friend accept that other forms of low-carbon energy have a major part to play, because he has not mentioned them so far in his remarks? I of course mean nuclear and carbon capture and storage.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

David Mowat Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, I agree, and I know that the Government are working to close tax loopholes, as we did in government.

DEFRA published its “Mainstreaming sustainable development” strategy in February—just seven pages to cut across the whole of Government. Its sustainable development programme board has not met since December last year and the sustainable development policy working group has not met since November. We got those answers in June 2011, so we can see that sustainable development is clearly no longer at the heart of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

What does this add up to? The Government have a plan for cuts but no plan for the environment, yet at the Tory conference the Environment Secretary told her colleagues:

“I passionately believe going green is both a moral and economic imperative.”

The very next day the Chancellor told the conference:

“We’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”

It was the day the husky died. The greenest Government ever were not even the greenest Government in 2010.

Our Labour Government were the greenest Government, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who makes a welcome return to our team, for the progress that he made on the environment when he was a Minister.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I note the comment, “Our Labour Government were the greenest Government”. We were 25th out of the 27 countries in the EU for renewables production in 2009-10. Is that what the hon. Lady means by “the greenest Government”?

[Mary Creagh]

We on the Labour Benches have always protected the environment, whether by setting up the national parks or introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Climate Change Act 2008. These show our green leadership. Will the Chancellor’s comments and the spat with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change enhance or reduce our leadership on these issues in Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

A little humility might be in order for the hon. Lady, who ignores the fact that we were the first Government in the world to legislate for binding emissions targets.

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

I shall make a little progress and I will give way again.

Today we see open warfare breaking out between Government Departments over mixed messages to UK plc, with the headline in The Independent, “Osborne’s anti-green agenda splits Coalition” and today the speech from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and snub to the Chancellor to cheers from a business audience. The only people who benefit from such Cabinet warfare are the climate sceptics at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, who want us to do less.

Our motion today expresses our concern at this internecine warfare and proposes three steps that the Department can take now to restore business confidence in the green agenda: bringing forward infrastructure spending on flood defence and broadband, as suggested in Labour’s five-point plan for growth; committing to mandatory carbon reporting to stimulate green innovation; and higher waste targets to drive private sector job creation. I shall address each of those in turn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

What a sorry tale. Again, the power of the Whips is demonstrated, even in Committee. That shows the collective amnesia on green issues that both parties in government are demonstrating.

[David Mowat]

Does the hon. Lady believe that if we had had more carbon reporting in the past 13 years we would now be higher than 25th of the 27 EU countries in terms of renewables? For the avoidance of doubt, and so that the House is aware, the two countries that we were ahead of in renewables in 2010 were Malta and Luxembourg.

[Mary Creagh]

We have leadership in offshore wind, and that was restated by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change today. I was at a business breakfast meeting with representatives of several large manufacturers of regeneration technology, and they said that the most important thing they want from the Government is certainty. I am not sure that climate change was at the top of our agenda 13 years ago, but we have realised over time that it is already factored in and that we will have changing climate over the next 50 years, so we must do something now if we are to preserve and conserve the earth’s resources. We have only one planet.

[David Mowat]

I agree with everything that the shadow Secretary of State has said, but I am concerned that after 13 years of the previous Government we were 25th of 27 countries, beating only Malta and Luxembourg.

[Mary Creagh]

When we were in government, we invested £60 million to allow wind turbine manufacturers to invest in our ports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I certainly do; once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Uncertainty is the thing that business likes least, but unfortunately uncertainty is what they are getting, in bucketfuls.

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman for absolutely the last time.

[David Mowat]

The shadow Minister is very generous and I thank her for giving way for absolutely the last time. I got my figures from an EU website, so they are in the public domain. We are 25th out of 27, the two countries that we beat are Malta and Luxembourg, and that is a matter of public record.

[Mary Creagh]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the useful publications from the European Union. I do not know which way he voted on Monday, but I am sure that that will be noted by the Whips. [Interruption.] Well, he is using the European Union to back up his argument, and that is very good news.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I should like to associate myself with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that this should not really be a political subject, but it does tend to become one. I also want to associate myself with the Minister’s comment that the Opposition had shown chutzpah by holding a debate on green leadership and growth. Given that they have decided to do so, however, it is reasonable to examine what has happened over the past decade and a half, and what kind of legacy Ministers have taken over in relation to green issues.

I want to be fair to the Opposition. They have used the word “leadership” a number of times in the debate, and I have been looking for examples of Labour showing leadership in the past 15 years. It has shown it in one area: that of legislation. No one could have passed more legislation on this subject than Labour. The Climate Change Act 2008 places on us a requirement to reduce the total of our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. That could be broken up in a number of ways, involving, for example, 25 new nuclear power stations—I do not think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would agree with that—or 40,000 wind turbines. It is a hugely ambitious target. Equally ambitious was the way in which the Labour Government signed up to the EU 20-20-20 directive in 2009.

That was where Labour showed leadership, but, having done that, what did they achieve? Where had they got to by 2010? Labour Members need to understand that we are 25th out of 27 in the EU in terms of renewables, as I pointed out earlier. It is possible that that statistic could be subject to challenge, however, because it was based on provisional figures. It puts us slightly ahead of Luxembourg, but it is possible that we are not. Perhaps we are in fact 26th out of 27. That is the legacy from the last Government that we have had to pick up and run with. That is the starting point.

Even less impressive were the numbers that came out, right at the end of 2010, on the total amount of energy produced in this country from non-fossil fuel sources, by which I mean renewables, hydro and nuclear. It fell by 10%. That was the legacy we were left with. Chutzpah is not even half of it. We now have to pick up from that position.

I do not agree with all aspects of the energy policy of my Front-Bench team. I would like us to go more quickly down the nuclear road, but I agree that at least we have a green policy that can be looked at and criticised and that we can try to improve. I do not think that we had that previously. The green deal is massively important. The Climate Change Act 2008 implies a reduction of our total emissions by 2050—either with or without the economic growth that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion does not want us to have—of around 40% to 50%. The green deal provides the only reasonable way of achieving that. The green investment bank and the energy market changes that we are going to make are hugely important.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The green investment bank, to the tune of nearly £3 billion, is a great step forward. I also think that the green deal will enable those who have not got their homes insulated with solid wall insulation to get that done under the new scheme. That will help many more people to insulate their homes, which will be good not only for the environment but for the families concerned.

[David Mowat]

I agree.

I did not mention the carbon floor price. Having sat through the debate, it remains unclear to me whether Labour Members support it or not.

All these matters are important, and I am proud that the Government whom I support are trying to get us higher up the league table from 25th or 26th out of 27 within the EU. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us where we hope to get to by the end of this Parliament? If we start at 25th, are we heading for 20th, 15th, 10th, fifth or what? It would be interesting to hear, as we have an awfully long way to go.