Illegal Waste: Organised Crime

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Correlation is not causation, but no one has so far mentioned that our environmental levies on legal waste disposal go up and up, in correlation with rises in criminal dumping. Is it possible that we have gone too far in that direction? Regardless of the enforcement we do, we are creating an incentive, and if there is enough money in it, we will have criminals doing it. There is no point wringing our hands in this Chamber and urging greater enforcement if we have created the fundamentals of an economy that we can never fix.

[Emma Hardy]

Of course we need to have a legal operating system, and it needs to be based on the cost of enforcement. We cannot have a legal system that ends up costing the Government and the taxpayer more. There needs to be a system that is fair and that operates well, but one of the fundamental problems we have with waste crime is that the Environment Agency was previously so badly underfunded.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, but it is important to understand the scale of the deposits from cows wading in their faeces compared with those from badgers, which have a far more fastidious hygiene regime. The risk of infection from badgers is very much reduced. If we were not putting the faeces from cows into the badgers’ food chain, badger faeces would be TB-free. The science speaks to that. We should stop putting untreated slurry on our fields, so we can take the TB out of the badgers’ food chain.

Two steps now need our focus. The first is allowing the testing of herds to show that they are free from infection before they become infectious. We need to do that early, routinely and assuredly, with the right testing. That is for the Government to scale. Secondly, we need to make sure that we treat slurry before it is placed on our fields. Anaerobic digestion is one solution.

Let us stop the cull, engage better with testing, control movements and put in place the biosecurity measures that will make improvements. As with all communicable diseases, we must always ensure high levels of hygiene. That is one of the basics of public health, and it should be applied here. Above all, we know that it works: it benefits farmers, it reduces their stress and anxiety, and ultimately it will save not only cattle and farms, but the badger.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I call Perran Moon.

Flood Defences: Chesterfield

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) is right to highlight the mental health impacts that flooding has on communities and individuals; he was also right to say that once someone has been flooded, they are always a flood victim. He discussed the appalling, awful and tragic loss of life in his constituency, as well as similar cases that we have seen, sadly, in other parts of the country. I hope it goes without saying that I am happy to give any assistance I can in getting people around the table.

I will have a look at why the section 19 report has taken so long and how it compares with other section 19 reports around the country so that I can understand what is happening: whether the one my hon. Friend has mentioned is an anomaly or whether it is standard—if it is standard, we clearly need to do something about that. Let me take that point away.

I hope that I can express, if nothing else, the urgency I feel when it comes to dealing with flood risk. My hon. Friend, and everyone else, is right to say that climate change is real and makes flood risks more common. We know from the NAFTA 2.0 reports that one in four homes will be at risk of flooding by the mid-century. The Government are putting in a record amount of funding, but at the same time climate change is making the situation worse. The situation is urgent.

I completely understand how anxious my hon. Friend’s constituents feel when, as he described, they see rainclouds and feel nervous about what will happen. It was really helpful to be in his constituency with him and see the schemes and the streets for myself. That helped me to really picture the individual circumstances they faced, so I thank him for that invitation. I spoke to the Environment Agency ahead of this debate, and want to give you an update—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

You mean give him an update.

[Emma Hardy]

I can also give you an update, Mr Stuart, but I would like to give my hon. Friend an update, too. The EA recently completed the project to refurbish a section of the floodwall on the River Rother that was damaged during Storm Babet, and £75,000 of DEFRA flood defence funding has been allocated to the avenue for the storage reservoir, which my hon. Friend and I visited together. As he rightly said, it operated during Storm Babet, but there was still widespread flooding downstream.

That funding will allow the EA to investigate any improvements that can be made to how it operates to hopefully reduce more flood risks. The Environment Agency is working with the council to investigate the removal or raising of several bridges along the Rivers Hipper and Rother. That is at an early stage, but it will help us look at how to improve flow and reduce the risk of blockages, which is an issue that was raised previously.

In addition, the Environment Agency, Derbyshire county council and the Don Catchment Rivers Trust are exploring natural flood management opportunities for the Hipper and Spital Brook catchments—my hon. Friend knows I am a fan of natural flood management; I will come to the flood funding formula and how that can enable natural flood management. They have also secured just under £400,000 of funding towards the River Hipper flood alleviation scheme to support the development of the business case, so they are on to the development stage of the project. It includes £275,000 of local levy from the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and £60,000 from Chesterfield borough council. The scheme will protect over 200 homes and businesses.

Pre our funding formula review, at this moment, the scheme is estimated to cost £16 million, with a funding gap of under £40 million, but that is under the current rules. However, that could change as a result of our funding rules. I will say a bit more about our funding consultation. The current approach to the flood funding formula was drawn up by the previous Government in 2011, and is outdated and not working as it should. It neglects more innovative approaches such as natural flood management. In fact, the solution the previous Government had was to set a separate fund for natural flood management rather than integrating it into how the formula works as a whole.

Our proposed change looks at full Government funding for the first £3 million of projects. That unlocks lots of natural flood management because many smaller natural flood management schemes are less than £3 million; they are struggling because they cannot get the partnership funding to close the gap. Fully funding projects up to £3 million means we can get on with the smaller schemes. Then there is a flat rate of 90% Government contribution and 10% partnership funding. If the project of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is successful with the business case, it would be looking at 90% Government funding and having to find 10% partnership funding, which is very different from the current situation.

We would also fully fund the refurbishment of existing flood assets. Understandably, people say, “Why do we need partnership funding to maintain an asset that already exists?” Our flooding formula consultation says that we would fully fund refurbishment of assets as well.

The changes make natural flood management much easier. However, that means that many projects move through to the prioritisation stage. The first stage is: does it meet the tests to go through to prioritisation? Then there is prioritisation; even though we are putting a record amount of money into flooding, there is a certain amount there to be allocated, so the consultation looks at prioritisation. What do we want to prioritise when deciding which projects go ahead and which do not? Are we looking at very basic value for money in terms of numbers of properties protected? That would have an impact on rural communities. Are we looking at prioritising natural flood management? Are we looking at prioritising areas of deprivation? What are the prioritisation criteria? That is what the consultation asks. Are we prioritising “frequently flooded” as another criterion, to put weighting towards which ones actually go through to be built?

The consultation is happening at the moment. At this moment, I cannot say whether it would make it easier or harder for my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield to get his scheme developed. But the partnership funding that has held up my hon. Friend’s scheme would be dealt with under our consultation, because 90% would be Government funding and 10% would be partnership.

We need to prioritise which ones are done first. The consultation is genuinely open in listening to people about the criteria they want to prioritise. We obviously have to be really careful when spending any Government money and need a fair and transparent system when it comes to which projects get built first and which do not.

As has been mentioned, we are investing a record amount: £4.2 billion over three years to build, maintain and repair existing flood defences. That is a 5% increase in our annual average investment compared with our existing spend, which was already a record amount. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment and sense of urgency. The current funding will continue to support 1,000 flood schemes, better protecting 52,000 homes and businesses by March 2026. On top of that, a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored through essential maintenance activities.

As my hon. Friends know, we inherited flood defences in their worst state on record. The condition of key flood defences in England was at its lowest since the financial year 2009-10, with only 92% of assets at the required condition. In the current financial year, we are putting £430 million into constructing new schemes, and using a further £220 million to restore flood defences to the condition that they need to be in. That full list was published in March. Last week, we announced £7.9 billion of funding, which is the largest flooding programme in history, as part of our landmark infrastructure strategy.

We are introducing many other changes, but I can see that I am running out of time. On compulsory purchasing, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield recognises that the Environment Agency can compulsory purchase something only if it is for building a specific scheme. Sadly, he and others around the country have raised the problem of properties devaluing when they are continually at risk of flooding. I wonder whether in those particular circumstances, which I saw for myself, there is another conversation to be had about property flood resilience measures and whether more can be done to support those homes.

We have had a radical change with our flooding formula. It has made the system much simpler, so that people around the country can clearly understand that the first £3 million will be fully funded, and after that it will be 90% Government and 10% partnership funding. That is intended to equalise the system everywhere, because at the moment nobody quite understands why one scheme may have a partnership funding gap of £40 million, as in my hon. Friend’s case, and another may have no partnership funding gap at all. This formula makes the system much clearer.

I urge everybody to respond to the flooding consultation and to think about how they want Government money to be prioritised, so that we can protect as many people as possible from the devastating impact of flooding, which causes such a problem not only for the local economy but for mental health. We will continue to build and repair flood defences while delivering natural flood management and sustainable drainage systems, and we will make sure that this country is more resilient to floods.

Question put and agreed to.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

Bills have obviously had to increase in the latest price review because we have had record levels of under-investment in our infrastructure. However, new clause 18 is intended to ensure greater fairness. It is important for struggling customers that he, as the local Member of Parliament, is talking to the water companies to ensure that they are informed about the support mechanisms that are available, and about how they can access them and everything else to which they are entitled.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. She will know that just 7% of outfalls were monitored when Labour last left office. I am pleased to say that that figure is now 100%. Does she not agree that new clause 16 would ensure that the fines collected from polluting water companies through the water restoration fund, which was founded by the Conservatives in 2022, are used to improve and prevent further deterioration of our waterways, including our precious chalk streams? Will she now do what we all look to Ministers to do, which is pirouette at the Dispatch Box, recognise the rightness of the cause and change course?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is indeed an eager beaver. As much as I do not wish to pour water on his enthusiasm, I will of course respond to all the amendments at the end of this stage of the Bill, as protocol expects. I hope he is able to contain his excitement, and is looking forward to my final comments on that area. And I shall be practising my pirouettes in anticipation.

I wish to pay special thanks to the Welsh Government, the Deputy First Minister and the officials who have worked so openly and collaboratively with the UK Government throughout the development and passage of this Bill. I also thank the Senedd for their consent, which we received on 21 January. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our Welsh counterparts to protect our rivers, lakes and seas, particularly those that cross our borders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

To follow up the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), that money will ultimately come from water bill payers. It will be ordinary families across the country who must contribute to the £100 million fines or whatever is imposed on our water companies. For that to be taken and then swallowed by the Treasury, rather than used to improve water, would be a disgrace. Does he not agree that the Government must accept new clause 16?

[Dr Hudson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to an amendment we have also tabled to ensure that if fines are levied on water companies, customers’ bills go down accordingly, so that taxpayers and bill payers are not penalised for water companies doing the wrong thing.

The Government have made ejections in this House and in the other place to the principle of ringfencing the funding and have stated the need for the Treasury to have flexibility on how it spends that money, but in this specific case, their argument still does not stack up. Where money comes from taxation, ringfencing is not always the most reliable way to ensure that the Treasury can have the spending power it needs to deliver that spending, but here we are talking about something very different. Fines are much more uncertain and provide less of a guarantee regarding the amount of money they will bring in. To rely on those funds for day-to-day Treasury spending does not make sense. Ringfencing those penalties for our water restoration fund is a sensible measure that enables Governments to guarantee they can meet a specific need. Water companies pay the fines for the damage they have done, and the local communities affected are empowered to have their local waterways restored.

It is worth repeating the finer detail of our amendment; it should not go ignored that this will also improve chalk streams. It was incredibly disappointing that over Christmas, the Government revealed that they had abandoned plans by the Conservatives to recover our chalk streams. Given that England is home to 80% of the world’s chalk streams, a failure to act on this issue neglects a vital duty to protect a key part of our environment. In light of this, we believe that the Government need to think again about rejecting our important amendment, which is a matter of principle, a matter of justice in righting wrongs, and a fundamental commitment to water quality.

When it comes to improving our waters, it is supporting those who are most affected when water companies fail to abide by their duties that are at the heart of the Opposition’s concerns —the British public, as individual consumers, bill payers and members of local communities. Customers must not pay the price for water companies’ failure to do their duties, whether financial, environmental or otherwise. As such, the Opposition have tabled new clause 19, which would require the DEFRA Secretary of State to provide that where a water company has faced financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, a financial amount equal to those penalties must be removed from the bills of that water company’s consumers.

This is very important, as a toxic cocktail of poor behaviour by water companies and rising bill prices has led to many people feeling that they are receiving poor value for money and not getting the quality water services that they deserve. A concomitant reduction in customer bills that people will see directly on their statements will be a real and tangible sign that poor behaviour is not going unchecked. The Government have previously rejected the proposal, but we urge them to think again about this simple yet effective amendment that would do so much to underpin all the work that is being done and protect bill payers.

I turn to some of our further amendments. Our concerns about the water industry and finances extend to what is in the Bill as it stands—in particular, the provisions for special administration orders in clauses 12 and 13, which the Opposition have raised in the other place and in Committee. Those clauses would give the Government the power to recover any losses they make through placing a company in special administration by raising consumer bills. My Conservative colleagues in the other place sounded the alarm on this issue, and I put on record again my thanks to them for doing so. If water companies require the Government to place them in special administration through their own failure, why should consumers foot the bill for failures they have had no influence on or responsibility for? That is particularly the case if a customer’s bills will rise as a result of mismanagement by a company whose services they do not even rely on.

This proposal runs contrary to the nature of all the action taken in recent years to improve water quality, whereby companies that are responsible for failing to get their affairs in order must take responsibility. We have all been starkly aware of concerns surrounding the financial resilience of Thames Water, and as many will know, Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report in November identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. We acknowledge that the Government believe that they expect to use special administration orders as a last resort and in limited circumstances. However, it is the Opposition’s firm belief that an injustice remains, with people having to pay for companies that they have no connection to. We have therefore tabled amendments 26 and 27, which would explicitly forbid the raising of prices for consumers who do not use the services of the water company that is in special administration. We believe this is a fair and reasonable compromise that the Government should accept, so that we can work to improve the water industry’s financial practices.

We have also tabled new clause 17, which would amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new rules regarding limits on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water company. Regrettably, the Government rejected this sensible measure in Committee, so we have tabled it again to ensure that water companies do not excessively borrow money, which is ultimately bad for bill payers. When we talk about financial resilience, the heart of the issue is concern about borrowing, and the resultant over-leveraging in the industry. We will be pushing that new clause to a Division. We will also be supporting the measures on nature recovery that we tabled in Committee.

We will be looking very closely at some of the amendments from the Liberal Democrats. New clause 2, which they tabled in Committee, would abolish Ofwat. At that stage, we pointed out that the new clause was not explicit about what it would transition to, so we do not believe that is a sensible way forward.

New clause 18 would grant the Government a power to create a unified scheme of charging arrangements for customers in need of support regardless of the specific supplier, and introduce a consultation for that purpose. Although the Opposition welcome looking at that, can the Government please ensure that others consumers do not face rising bills as a result? It will be interesting to see what the Government do with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

That is my personal view; I put that on the record.

These companies have legal obligations first and foremost to their shareholders, which means short-term profit maximisation. When water was privatised, to quote from Unison’s recent report on this matter, to

“ensure the commercial success of the companies, the government wrote off all the existing debts of the RWAs”—

regional water authorities—

“(£6.5 billion in total) and gave the private companies £7.7 billion of public subsidies in tax relief on profits.”

It has come to my attention that even some former chief executives of water companies fear for the future of the industry, because good investors have by and large exited it. It is now the Macquaries and vulture capitalists of this world that dominate shareholding.

This issue goes far beyond regulation. Indeed, our own regulator, Ofwat, has been found wanting, as its own growth duty prioritises business as usual. In other areas, the Government have quite rightly recognised and embraced the value of public ownership, such as in rail and with Great British Energy. Unfortunately, when it comes to water companies there seems to be an inconsistency in Government policy. Many of us on this side of the House ran on a manifesto commitment to reduce the cost of living, and that commitment is one that I think every Labour MP believes in. However, the cost of corruption and of extraction by a private water company should under no circumstances, as is currently configured in the Bill, land on the heads of our constituents should any of these companies go bust or be taken into special administration.

Water is a monopoly industry, which means that bill payers and taxpayers are the same. What message would it send to our constituents if they are asked to pay, via their bills or via tax, to make a payout for the mistakes and excesses of privatised water?

[Graham Stuart]

Doubtless the behaviour of the privatised firms should be looked at closely, but one of the fundamentals of having a state-run system for such long-term assets was that they were chronically under-invested. They could never win out in the political battle between schools, hospitals and long-term water infrastructure, and only privatisation allowed the record investment that has gone in since. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that in trying to get the balance right.

[Clive Lewis]

I do recognise that, and not for one second am I calling for nationalisation, which is the model the right hon. Member was talking about. There is a plethora of possibilities for public ownership, from mutualisation through to giving regional authorities more scope, and even working with the private sector. We must ensure that the public have a critical say over the future of water, and there are multiple forms that public ownership can take. I am not necessarily in favour of 1970s-style nationalisation, which is pretty much what they have in Scotland at the moment.

I will, however, ask those on the Front Bench to consider new clause 8 and ensure that our constituents—the people we came into politics for—do not foot a single penny more for the failures of privatised water. Investors, shareholders and creditors should be the ones who take the haircut. They should be the ones who foot the bill because of what they have done to our water. This should not be landing on the heads of our constituents. This is a political choice, and I urge my Government to make it clear that we will always back the public, not the private companies that have got us into this mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman paints a beautiful picture. How much does he think it would cost to implement and how much would that cost impact on bill payers?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The measures we propose should be taken in the round. All our amendments significantly improve the Bill.

New clause 21 would also improve sewage outflow in Henley-on-Thames and the villages along the Thames Path national trail. That is desperately needed to end the shame of welcoming the world to our beautiful town of Henley at the royal regatta, only to subject it to what we put down the toilet.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the protections it will deliver to my constituents, but I hope the Government will consider going further very soon.

Farming and Food Security

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman is making and thank him for his intervention. I will comment later in my speech on further support that we would wish to offer tenant farmers. I do recognise the situation that they are in.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

On 13 September, I met representatives from my local NFU and a whole group of farmers who are desperate to see both the recovery fund moneys dispersed and the support for the internal drainage board. Will the Secretary of State please put their minds at rest in this crisis situation in which they find themselves and commit to making sure that that money does flow? Talking about the Budget, we need action now to support those people if what he says about energy security and the centrality of farming to this country is to be more than just words.

[Steve Reed]

It is regrettable that this Government inherited from the previous Government flood defences in the worst condition ever recorded. Of course I recognise that farmers need support, but they need long-term support, not just the sticking plaster approach that we had from the previous Government. We will be looking at how we can do that. The Environment Agency has already made £37 million available, so support will be available to farmers that are facing flooding in the here and now. However, it is in the spending review that we will look at how we can provide that longer-term support so that we can give farmers and, indeed, other businesses and homeowners protection from the kind of severe weather events that we are seeing much more frequently due to climate change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I will make five points in three minutes—if I can pull that off, I trust I will go up even further in your estimation, Madam Deputy Speaker.

First, this Government, like all Governments, need to recognise that the food chain in this country is distorted by the power of a handful of huge corporate retailers. For far too long they have taken the lion’s share of the agricultural cake. It is critical that we rebalance the chain in favour of primary and secondary producers. Previous Governments have done some work on that, with the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was in government when that was set up, but it needs more teeth to act on sharp practice by retailers who run ragged over primary producers.

Secondly, we need a strategy for food security. That means recognising that food security is as important as energy security; they must not be made competitors one with the other. We saw during covid and after the start of the war in Ukraine just what damage the unforeseen and unexpected can do to international markets and supply lines. It is critical that we grow more of what we consume, and shorten those supply lines to ensure that people will be fed by produce that is made here in the United Kingdom.

[Graham Stuart]

Is my right hon. Friend disappointed, as I am, that the Secretary of State did not say more about food security, and how we can make sure that a greater share of our food comes from this country?

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend has been a champion of these matters for a considerable period. I have hopes of the Secretary of State. I had a debate just before the recess in which the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs participated. I made the case for food security, and he gave me a fair hearing. I look forward to the meeting to which I know he is about to invite me; I can bring along a group of farmers and growers, to have that ongoing conversation. The core point is that food security matters. It not only helps with economic resilience but assists with traceability, quality, standards—all those things.

My third point was stimulated by the Secretary of State’s comments about investment and our need to think big. We do indeed. To maintain productivity and efficiency in farming and growing, we need to look to the future. That means greater automation and changing the way we go about the food production business. It means greater integration, but not at the expense of the small farmers and growers. An efficient system does not necessarily mean exclusively huge farm businesses, as we need an entry point to the industry. If we simply create a handful of very large corporate farmers, we will not allow the kind of fluidity necessary to maintain the health of the industry.

My fourth point is on procurement. The Government need to use procurement to support British produce. It is not that difficult, but no Government, of any party, have got it right. We have made some progress over time, as different Governments have launched different initiatives, but we need to use the public purse to support what we do in this country more effectively.

My final point is this: we can have a debate about the detail of policy but, as has been said by the shadow Secretary of State and others, we need to take a bigger view than the partisan knockabout that too often prevails in this kind of discussion. This is about the future good of our people through the production of food to feed the nation.

Food Security

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

With the perception for which my hon. Friend is already becoming known in the House, she anticipates the next part of my peroration. She represents an area that I know well; it is glorious, and I know now too that it has a glorious new Member of Parliament. The point she highlights is that over recent events, particularly the pandemic and the war in Europe, food security has gone from being a marginal matter—one that people like me raised regularly, but that was seen as rather self-indulgent, because people know I represent an area of the kind I describe and they felt I was merely championing those domestic interests—to a matter that goes well beyond the domestic to one of profound national importance.

Recent events have shown us the salience of economic resilience. We need to be sure that not only in times of crisis, but in other times, we can withstand the shocks that are the inevitable consequence of human circumstances and human frailties. Making our country more resilient in those circumstances has become a national imperative. I am delighted to say that, in what I hope we can all agree is a post-liberal age, the issue of food security, far from being marginal, has become mainstream. The Minister is an old parliamentary friend, having shadowed me—with great style, if I may say so—when I was a Transport Minister. I happen to know that he shares my view about salience; I therefore anticipate his response with enthusiasm bordering on glee.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to continue to share his insights into food security with the Labour party, which has no particular history in that respect? Indeed, its Front-Bench team consists of a Secretary of State from Croydon, a Minister of State from Cambridge and a couple of others from Hull and Coventry. They know little of country ways; they know little of the importance of food security. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in his charming and constructive way, will ensure that the Labour party, and particularly its Ministers, learn from his great knowledge.

[Sir John Hayes]

I will hear nothing negative said about Cambridge, given my connection with King’s College; I have never knowingly been to Croydon, so I cannot comment on it. What is certainly true is that this goes beyond party politics. My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that any responsible Government would recognise that the salience of the matter has changed, as I have set out. We have been through some difficult times in recent years, and they have concentrated minds in a way that might not otherwise have happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister see any merit in legislating for a food security target?

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is under consideration, and we will come back to that in due course. I note that, where appropriate, solar projects can be designed to enable continued livestock grazing. There is also a science of agrivoltaics developing, in which solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. Solar energy can be an important way for farmers to increase their revenue from land less suited to higher-value crop production. There is also evidence that solar can improve biodiversity. We recognise that, sadly, confidence among farmers is at a record low, but this Government want to change that. We look forward to working closely with farmers to strengthen food security, progress the energy transition and boost rural economic growth.

I thank everyone who has contributed to an interesting and informed debate. As ever, most importantly, I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and not just for securing the debate today. I am sure the debate will continue, and I look forward to conducting it in the same constructive manner in which we have started it tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary, and I am grateful to the Minister, not just for her helpful introductory remarks but for the pre-meeting discussion we had a few days ago. She has set out clearly the Government’s view on this important piece of legislation. I will make Labour’s position very clear from the outset. We are not going to oppose this SI, but we are not satisfied that the Government have yet set out the clear and strong regulatory framework that is needed to provide the certainty that investors need, the reassurance that the public need, or the protection that the environment needs. All those things are important, but they are also interrelated, because investor confidence does not come without public confidence.

Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation. We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK, and we know that crop development and innovation has brought us all huge gains. As Henry Dimbleby observed in the opening comments to the national food strategy—to which, of course, we still await a Government response—

“The food system we have today is both a miracle and a disaster”

providing

“enough calories (albeit unevenly distributed) to feed 7.8 billion of us…But the food we eat—and the way we produce it—is doing terrible damage to our planet and to our health.”

We agree, and it shows that we need to find ways to maintain and improve that efficiency, but also address the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused.

Some will say that more innovation just brings more problems, risks and dangers. We do not take that view, but we strongly believe that it is right to be careful, because this is about balancing risks, knowing that alongside the benefits—which absolutely should include significant environmental gains, such as reduced use of pesticides—there may be the danger that either mistakes are made, or there are things we simply do not know. That cannot paralyse us from action, because every intervention has risks attached, but we need a system that allows us to manage those trade-offs and those risks, and I am afraid that this SI does not do any of those things.

I am sure the Minister would say that it is not trying to do them: that this is a small step and, as she has indicated, that more will follow. That may be the case, and we agree that this is a relatively small step. It is important to be clear that this SI is about research, not products that reach consumers. However, I am afraid that the failure to provide the necessary structures and reassurances could turn a small step into a much bigger mistake if it fails to provide the necessary public reassurance.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is fantastic to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge speaking enthusiastically in favour of one of the benefits of Brexit. Does he agree that the EU got this wrong and that, with the right provisions in place—I note that he is not opposing this SI—this is a journey to a better place, and one that the EU turned its face against?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to point out that this has nothing to do with Brexit, because of course the EU has embarked on much the same kind of path. It is already consulting on where it is likely to get to, and it is quite likely that we are going to get to a similar place at a similar time, as I will come on to later in my speech.

It is not just the Opposition who have concerns. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has made a series of strong criticisms that Ministers should take seriously, and that I hope Committee members have had the opportunity to consider. Committees in the other place often have comments about statutory instruments, but these are much more substantial than normal. The issue made it into the national print media, and on to national radio. When that level of public interest is generated by a report on the inner workings of this place, it should give the Government pause for thought. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its report, the regulations

“are politically or legally important and give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.”

I will briefly outline its concerns.

The Committee quotes the Government’s impact assessment, which makes interesting reading itself, and which I have looked at closely. The Committee cites the view widely held in the industry that the 2018 European Court of Justice judgment has held back research in the UK and the EU. The Committee says—this mirrors comments made elsewhere in the Government’s documentation—that

“the Government now intend to change the law…to allow GM plants that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods for release for non-marketing purposes. This is to enable the bioscience sector to test the benefits and safety of relevant new products ‘without the burden of unnecessary regulatory processes’.”

That is what this statutory instrument sets out to do, but the act of deregulation does not always lead to innovation; frankly, that is an ideological assertion. Page 1 of the impact assessment says that there is “some evidence” for the Government’s claim, but it does not say what that evidence is. The Minister may have it, and may be prepared to offer it, but others, myself included, would argue that in general it is good regulation, not a lack of regulation, that spurs innovation.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says:

“Regrettably, the EM”—

the explanatory memorandum—

“does not provide any further information on the Government’s plans for wider reform.”

The Minister said in her opening comments, which I welcome, that primary legislation will be forthcoming, and I think she has confirmed that. Perhaps she can tell us a little more, because she mentioned that in our meeting earlier this week. The crucial question is what that primary legislation is designed to do—whether it will deregulate further, as I suspect it will, or whether it will set up, as I would much rather it did, a proper, fit-for-purpose regulatory system. Perhaps she can clarify that.

I am sure that the Minister has read the submission from the Royal Society of Biology to the consultation run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is lengthy, substantial and raises a number of interesting suggestions—it is in my pile of papers. It includes ways in which short-term improvements could have been made under existing legislation. Will the Minister tell us whether those suggestions were considered? It also sets out ideas for a future regulatory framework. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister commented on those.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also highlighted points made strongly by organisations such as Beyond GM and GM Freeze about the introduction of the term, “qualifying higher plant”, which is introduced in the SI. The Organic Farmers & Growers group described it as a term it does not “recognise in any way”. This is clearly a thorny issue, as a number of the submissions to the consultation confirm—as far as we can find out, I should say. I do not think that the Government chose to publish the submissions; I am not sure why. Most of the ones I have were found by going back to the organisations that submitted them. Let me give some examples. The Roslin Institute says:

“it is exceptionally challenging to define which changes to the genome could have been produced by ‘traditional’ breeding.”

The Royal Society says:

“this question is problematic as there is a difference between what could be produced by traditional breeding in theory and in practice”.

The Royal Society of Biology says:

“No clear criteria can be described that would determine whether an organism produced by genome editing or other genetic technologies could have been produced by traditional breeding. This means no clarity can be achieved using this principle, and it is not appropriate as the basis of regulation.”

That is a strong statement from experts in the field. I will read out that last sentence again:

“it is not appropriate as the basis of regulation”,

but that is how the Government are proceeding.

DEFRA’s response when pressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

“is in the process of developing guidance”

that

“will be available shortly.”

What is “shortly”? The response from the Lords was:

“We regret that the guidance has not yet been published, especially as the Department would have been aware of the concerns which were raised during consultation. The House may wish to press the Minister for an explanation why the guidance has not been made available in time for it to be taken into account by Parliament in its consideration of these draft Regulations. We urge the Department to ensure that the guidance is published in good time before the new rules come into effect and that this guidance is communicated effectively, in order to provide clarity to researchers and those who have concerns about the new policy.”

Well, quite. The guidance should have been ready when the draft SI was laid. Why was it not, and when will it be?

ACRE might be struggling to do something that the Royal Society of Biology and others say is simply not possible. Given that much of this is about retaining public confidence, I took a look at ACRE, on whose advice so much of the draft SI depends. They are seven very eminent and experienced people, and I am sure they do an excellent job, but in the declaration of interests, six of the seven record very direct links with companies that might well benefit from the technology—no fewer than three of them quote Syngenta. I simply say to the Minister: if or when the public look at this, I suspect we know what they are likely to think. Is there sufficient balance and independence? Is she sure that the regulatory framework is right?

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s next concern follows from that uncertainty about the definition of qualifying higher plants, in that GMO developers in effect self-declare whether their product is in that category. Question 5 in the Committee’s list of questions to DEFRA queries that. The answer is that the advice from ACRE is that the risk from genetic technologies is no greater than traditional breeding—well, frankly, they would say that, and that is the nub of the argument. Will the Minister explain why she believes the public will have confidence in that approach, given that there is no way of anyone knowing or being able to find out whether something is being developed with the technology unless those developers choose to declare it? Frankly, with this draft SI, it is just down to trust.

Organic farmers are particularly concerned, given that the new notification measures do not include location, scale or details of containment measures. The DEFRA answer puts the onus on researchers, again relying on trust, which is not enough to reassure organic growers who risk loss of certification. When asked about who would be liable if something went wrong, DEFRA’s answer is, in essence, that it does not believe that that will happen.

Once again, I find myself with the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on this. Its sensible conclusion was that

“the Department should consider conducting and publishing an evaluation of…new rules and of any environmental or economic damage, to inform the wider reforms that the Government intend to take forward in this area.”

Will the Minister agree to do that, and if not, why not? I appreciate that she may not have an immediate answer to hand on all or many of my questions, but if she committed to writing to me, that would be helpful.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also points out the devolution issues: the draft SI applies to England, as the Minister said, while the Scottish and Welsh Governments have expressed concerns and are not pursuing equivalent changes. That may not be an issue now but, given the discussion about the UK internal market rules—some of us will remember them from some months ago—it is worth noting that there may well be challenges ahead as different parts of the UK take different approaches.

Finally—you will be pleased to hear, Sir Gary—from the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee came the bigger constitutional question of whether this is the right way to proceed on an issue of considerable public interest. The Committee makes a strong case that this should have been done through primary rather than secondary legislation, not least because there is no opportunity for amendment. Within this SI alone, it is clear that there are provisions ripe for amendment and debate, which cannot be done in Committee today.

Let me conclude by returning to the wider argument. The Government’s case, as I understand it, is that the existing safeguards mean that GE research is going elsewhere, not just from the UK but from the EU. As I said, the EU takes the same view and is consulting on similar changes. I suspect it will get to a similar place, but possibly—this is a risk for us—with a better overall regulatory structure. We need to be mindful of that.

If the aim is to allow small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups to compete against much better-funded bigger players—and that is to be welcomed—they would be making a judgment about which regulatory regime will give them the best future. The Royal Society of Biology makes that point in its submission. That is why we need the right regulation; not only is no or limited regulation dangerous in itself, but it will not be attractive to those who want to take their research further, with regulatory approval from a much larger entity that serves a much bigger market. We want to know if and when that broader regulatory architecture will be available. When is the primary legislation going to be laid? How advanced is the thinking on it? What does the Minister have in mind? These are all reasonable questions that should have been answered before, not after, this initial step.

Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the guidance to be published clearly lays out how the current architecture works and explains precisely who does what and what the roles of ACRE, the Genetic Modification Inspectorate—which is, as the Minister said, a part of the Animal and Plant Health Agency—and the Food Standards Agency are? It is not obvious to many people how those fit together so it would be helpful to have it clearly laid out.

This relatively short SI raises many complicated, important and substantial questions, which will no doubt be returned to when we have primary legislation. As I said at the outset, Labour wants this technology to work. We want our scientists to be at the forefront, but that will happen only if everyone has confidence in the regulatory framework in which they operate. That is the way to get ahead—for consumers, producers and the environment. Get the framework right and we are on to a winner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Is it not so important that, first, we get this right—the hon. Member for Cambridge was right to highlight questions in that respect—and secondly, that we send a signal to the industry, which is going to be so important in tackling the issues my hon. Friend has raised on the future of humanity, that the UK is open for business, is going to be led by science and will have a regulatory regime that is friendly to business and will allow us to be a major centre for tackling some of the biggest threats facing mankind?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend for the vast experience he brings as a former Trade Minister. Having recently been on a trip to the Dubai Expo, where I talked about some of our agri-innovation opportunities and we looked at how different societies around the world can beat some of the challenges of ensuring food security, I could not agree with him more.

I wish to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge, who took some time to articulate how he was not satisfied with the framework in respect of both guidance and investors. The rest of the GMO framework remains unchanged and will do so until we consult in the future, as I set out.

Let me turn to the scientific criterion for the “higher plant” equivalent to plants that could have been produced by traditional breeding methods. The composition of genetic material in individual plants of the same species is subject to high levels of natural variation and selection, which plant breeders have exploited for centuries. Our understanding of plant genomes and the accompanying advances in technology have increased significantly since the previous legislation and enabled scientists to utilise variation more efficiently by making precise changes to the plant’s DNA. Such changes are equivalent to those that could have been achieved by traditional breeding methods. That is what we mean by the classification of a “higher plant” in the provision.

Flooding

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I will go on to mention, the Pitt review, which was initiated in 2007 by the last Labour Government, recommended year-on-year above inflation increases in spending. That is exactly what the Labour Government did. It was only when the coalition Government got in in 2010 that that spending was reversed.

I was talking about the warnings that the Government have ignored, such as the warning from the Committee on Climate Change.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

If I may, I will make a little progress.

People in Yorkshire deserve to know why the Secretary of State did not feel compelled to act when Professor Colin Mellors, who was appointed by the Government to chair the Yorkshire regional flood and coastal committee, warned that “ever tighter budgets” would mean that they would have

“to consider sites where maintenance might be formally discontinued”.

What about the Association of Drainage Authorities? It told Ministers that their neglect of our flood defences could double the number of households at significant risk of flooding within 20 years, with too many assets maintained to only minimal level. The Government were warned repeatedly about the damage caused by spending cuts and Environment Agency redundancies. They were warned that too many households and businesses could not afford flood insurance. They were warned that their neglect of our natural environment was exacerbating the flood risk, and that heavy rains and flooding would only become more frequent.

The Environment Secretary will no doubt tell us again that the Government are spending more than the coalition Government and more than the previous Labour Government. If only this Government put as much effort into defending people’s homes and businesses as they do their own record. The fact is that the Secretary of State is talking about capital expenditure only. They did not intend to spend more, but thanks to the emergency funding after the Somerset floods spending did increase by 0.8% in real terms. In today’s prices, that is £15 million over five years. The Government’s own advisers told them that flood spending would have to increase by £20 million plus inflation each year. Does the Environment Secretary really think that £15 million over five years was something to be proud of?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

If I could just finish on the figures, because otherwise we will lose track of the point I am trying to make.

The National Audit Office confirmed that were it not for the panicked reaction to the Somerset floods, total funding would have fallen by 10% in real terms during the previous Parliament. In 2011-12 alone, capital funding fell in real terms by £118 million. The following year, the Environment Agency published a list of 387 flood projects that would be delayed or cancelled due to a lack of funding—schemes in Leeds, Croston in Lancashire and Kendal in Cumbria, all of which have since been hit by floods.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Lady not agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is right? It does not matter who is in government, the pressure for flood defence goes away when there has not been flooding for a while and there is competition with schools and hospitals for funding. Water was privatised not because it created a market—that could not be done—but because it got the funding in place to deliver an agreed standard at the most affordable price. Is it not time for a radical change so that instead of fighting the Treasury for funding we put it on to water bills or some other form of levy, as Dieter Helm suggested in the paper he produced this week?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will come on to Dieter Helm’s recommendations, which I agree make a really important contribution, and to the general issue of upstream management. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents would perhaps be concerned by the thought that they would be paying more in their water bills in order to address this situation.

The motion asks the Government whether they would be prepared to meet the £800 million a year of spending that the Environment Agency recommended. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State’s response. On the point about water bills, people already struggle to pay very high insurance premiums. In many cases, they have to make up for losses not covered by insurance. They have to meet excesses of up to £10,000 themselves. They would really struggle if they were hit by rising water bills on top of that.

Many people are angered by the Prime Minister’s claims today. A six-year programme of investment is welcome, but we need to know it will address the lasting legacy of the coalition’s cuts and that the money will be available given the reliance on external contributions. With the slow progress that has been made on infrastructure projects, we need to know when the schemes will be built. Communities cannot wait another six years for work even to start. We know how slow the progress has been on some on the schemes supposedly already in the pipeline.

We need the Environment Secretary to realise that any benefit from new schemes will be diminished if the Government allow existing schemes to deteriorate. In 2013-14, it was estimated that almost three quarters of flood defence asset systems would not be sufficiently maintained. Maintenance spending fell by 6% in real terms under the coalition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is doing an excellent job in achieving affordability for consumers at the same time as hitting the carbon budget targets. She also helped to negotiate a fantastic deal in Paris.

[Graham Stuart]

There has been a rather tedious backwards and forwards about the money. The fundamentals are that this Government are spending more on flood defence. Once we get over that attempt at point scoring, which sadly comes relentlessly from the Labour party, we can move on to the more important question, which is how the money is spent. Dieter Helm suggests that the thinking behind the spending has not been sufficiently aligned with economic reality. Regardless of who is in power, how do we ensure that we spend the limited money we have on the most effective defence for the maximum number of people and corporate interests, rather than perhaps as now spending it on areas where it cannot be justified?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is exactly why, in December, I reappointed Dieter Helm as chair of the Natural Capital Committee. I did so precisely so that he could look at that issue and ensure that we are spending money holistically across catchments. That is working hand in hand with our 25-year environment plan. Shortly, we will announce the framework for that. That will require a lot of work. There are a lot of people involved: the water companies, the Environment Agency, local communities, farmers and landowners. We can get better value for money. That is why we are moving in that direction and carrying out that work. However, there is a famous Chinese proverb: the best time to plant a tree is 25 years ago and the next best time is today. We do need to plan for the long term but it takes time to ensure that we get everything in order.

Climate Change and Flooding

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The A591 is a critical artery for tourism and for local residents to get about. It is now passable in a 4x4 vehicle, but we are working on getting it fully up and running as soon as possible, and the Department for Transport is working closely with the Cobra team to ensure that that happens, because it is a priority. I am pleased to say that the west coast main line was up and running as quickly as possible. Nearly all the 169,000 households and businesses whose power was cut off have been reconnected, although a small group of fewer than 50 need extra work at flooded properties. The Environment Agency has been assessing what more can be done, and has been moving in heavy equipment to clear rivers.

Our priority must continue to be public safety. Although 84 flood warnings have been removed in the last day or so, further flooding could occur as a result of rain falling on saturated ground. I urge people to keep up to date with the latest situation through the Environment Agency’s website and other news sources.

I know that this is of no comfort to those who have suffered, but the flood defences in Carlisle and Kendal successfully defended more than 100,000 households and businesses and prevented them from losing their power supplies. It is important for us now to consider how we can further improve resilience in our country.

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is working to ensure that we have long-term energy security, and that we tackle dangerous emissions. I think that she has shown massive leadership over the past week. Hers was an historic achievement in Paris, and I think that Opposition Members should applaud her for showing such leadership at an international level. I see that some of them are acknowledging her leadership; that acknowledgement is particularly welcome from the former Climate Change Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend for returning to the subject of flooding when she has—rightly—just moved on to the subject of climate change, but does she agree that it is now time for a radical change in the way in which we fund our flood infrastructure and maintenance? The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) pointed out that when floods occur, there is investment, there are promises, but the investment then fades. That happened under the Labour Government, and it tends to happen under all Governments. Should we not hand responsibility for a regulated standard to, for instance, the water companies?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have already made a major change. Rather than allowing a stop-start in flood defence spending, we have, for the first time, laid out a fully funded six-year programme to give communities the certainty they need. I shall say more about that later, but I was in the middle of praising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. She has done a fantastic job, and I think that that needs to be acknowledged. She has achieved an international climate change deal that will bring about a level playing field—it is very important for countries across the world to contribute—but she is also making sure that we deal with customers’ bills at home. It is right for us to improve our economy, achieve economic growth and reduce carbon, and my right hon. Friend is showing how that can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have already given way to the right hon. Lady once and I want to make progress, in order to give the many constituency MPs who are part of the debate an opportunity to speak.

I want to respond to the Opposition’s point about local farmers, some of whom I met yesterday. We are helping them to get their land sorted out, as much of it is covered with rubble. We are putting in place a special scheme to help farmers, which will be open from this Friday, and we are also seeing what we can do to prioritise basic farm payments for the worst affected farmers.

I have talked about our £2.3 billion programme—this is the first time ever that a Government have laid out their future flood defence spending. The private sector partnership money that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has been talking about is in addition to the real-terms increase—extra money so that even more flood defence schemes can go ahead. We have already secured £250 million of that money and we have a further £350 million earmarked. We are only six months into the scheme. Let us remember what happened between 2005 and 2010: only £13 million was raised. We raised £134 million in the last Parliament—10 times that raised under the previous Government.

The money we are putting in represents real flood defences across the country. It means that in Boston we are building a new £90 million barrier; in Rossall, Lancashire, we are investing £63 million for a new 2 km sea wall; in Exeter, we are investing £30 million in new flood defences; and on the Thames we are investing £220 million in a 17 km flood relief channel. I am pleased to say that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol East we will invest £1 million in a scheme for Brislington, and that in Stockton North we are investing £8 million in a scheme at Port Clarence and Greatham South. What this money—this real-terms increase in spending—means is real protection for real families and real businesses across the country, in addition to protection for 420,000 acres of farmland.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend knows that local MPs supported a proposal to the Department seeking about £1 billion to help the Humber area, which faces the second greatest strategic risk in the country, after London. What plans does the Department have to work on coming up with a viable programme for our area?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are investing £80 million in flood defences for that area, but I am happy to meet him and his colleagues to talk about what more we can do to increase resilience there.

It is very important to note that we are not complacent about our flood defences. We will look at what has happened in recent weeks to make sure we learn lessons and act upon the new evidence that has come to light. We have committed ourselves to two reviews: first, the Cumbria flooding partnership, led by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has responsibility for flooding, will look at how we can improve downstream defences, do more to look at the overall catchment and slow the flow upstream, and more fully involve the community. I saw a fantastic project last week at Stockdalewath, where upstream mitigation is being used to reduce the peaks in river flow. This is already happening, but I want to see more of it, which is why we are launching this new workstream. Secondly, we are putting in place a national resilience review to look at how we model and plan for extreme weather, how we protect our critical assets and how we make future investment decisions—my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked about that. With the £2.3 billion programme that we have laid out, we want communities to have certainty that their projects are going ahead, so this review will look at future flooding investment to make sure that the formula is adapted to what we now know.

Let me be clear with Opposition Members that we already have some of the most sophisticated flood modelling in the world. For the first time in Cumbria, during this flooding we used ResilienceDirect, which meant that all the emergency services could communicate with each other in real time and with the Environment Agency, which was very effective at getting early action. We are working to make sure that we keep up to date with the latest trends in climate and in extreme weather, which the hon. Member for Bristol East was talking about.

The Government are completely committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure Cumbria and the other flood affected areas are up and running and more resilient for the future. But the reality is that without a strong economy, under a Conservative Government, we would not have money for these crucial schemes. It is our party that is investing in new power stations and making sure we have energy supplies, while reducing carbon emissions. It is our party that is investing to make this country more resilient and adapt to climate change and extreme weather. The Labour party has no plan, having shirked these decisions when it was in office and wasted our money. Let us all remember what the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:

“I’m afraid there is no money”.

That was the Labour Government’s legacy. The fact is that it is the Conservative party that is protecting our economy, and safeguarding our security and our future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, following as it does the excellent news from Paris and the rather more depressing news of recent flooding.

I have just lost two of my favourite Ministers from the Front Bench—although they are staying for a moment—but I have another still on the Front Bench. I am delighted to have their temporary audience. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I congratulate our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on her part in helping to deliver a deal in Paris. Colleagues across the Chamber will doubtless debate how important and how effective that deal is and how it contrasts with Copenhagen, from which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) bears such scars. Despite much of the detail being left for future work, I think we have a framework from Paris which can give us hope for the future. The intended nationally determined contributions provide the building blocks with which we can go forward. We have in place in the agreement the promise of not only a stocktake, but a review and, we hope, a growth in ambition over time.

Following Paris, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has two things to do. One is to ensure that UK decarbonisation proceeds within the framework provided by the Climate Change Act 2008 and the fourth and fifth carbon budgets—our most current—which have been produced by the Climate Change Committee. We have not always got it all right. For instance, in the case of onshore wind, which is the lowest cost form of renewable energy that we have, there was a misdiagnosis of the problem.

The diagnosis of the problem, which people like me helped to provide over many years on behalf of our constituents, was that our constituents did not like having onshore wind turbines foisted on them, their local councillors ignored and a distant inspectorate insisting on them being built, resulting in our constituents losing any sense of control over the local environment. What local people wanted was to have control over their local environment. In those areas where there was least opposition, or where the recompense was adequate, onshore wind turbines should be allowed, but where local people were set on not having them, they should not go ahead.

That was a mistake that Labour made in government. With various Ministers in place I tried to get them to see that we would ultimately end up with more if we went with the grain of local opinion rather than trying to fight against it, but inevitably those whose local environment would be dominated by those constructions and who had had no say on it would find a political voice and eventually bring the scheme to a halt. We would end up with fewer, rather than more, wind turbines. So it has proved.

The misdiagnosis lay in the fact that my party came to the conclusion that the difficulty was not the planning, but the subsidy, even though it is the lowest subsidy of any form of renewable energy. So we got to the bizarre situation where there is no subsidy for the cheapest form of renewable energy, at the same time as we talk about lowering costs to consumers. We should have removed the right to appeal to the inspectorate and allowed the developers to provide packages which won support in certain parts of the country. Personally, I felt that we would have ended up with more, but somehow we have ended up with the cheapest form of renewable energy in effect receiving no support, which is a bizarre outcome. We do not want to make further such mis-steps.

On the positive side, in my local area we have offshore wind. By next year we should have 6 GW of offshore wind in this country, more than the rest of the world combined. By 2020 we should have 10 GW and, as the Secretary of State laid out recently, as did the Chancellor in the autumn statement, there is every hope that we will see a doubling of that between 2020 and 2030. So we are making significant progress in offshore wind, and it is only because of the pipeline that we have seen the supply chain and manufacturers able to invest and lower cost.

The big task for the Secretary of State is to work out how we are going to deliver decarbonisation of the UK economy at the lowest possible cost. It became apparent to me 10 years ago at the Montreal COP—conference of the parties—that we had to get the costs down. Sadly, hand-wringing environmental concern is not widely shared among the general populace of this country, among parliamentarians or across the world. We need to get the costs down so that it becomes more politically acceptable to people to do that which is compatible with tackling the risks suggested by the science.

My advice to the Secretary of State is that in every decision she makes in this area, she needs to think about creating a framework which encourages that investment. The state is only a relatively small player. Sometimes Ministers of successive Governments in this country talk as if the state is the key driver. The state is not the key driver; it is a small player. We create the framework, then we get the investment. It is that investment in solar by private companies in China and elsewhere, partly driven by the German market, that has led to the massive reduction in costs for solar. It has been the private sector investment, with the help of the Green Investment Bank, which has helped accelerate the cost curve downwards for offshore wind. That is what we must do—create a consistent environment.

There was a lot of positive rhetoric under the Labour Government about tackling climate change, but remarkably little action. In the end, in 2010, there had not been the progress that we should have seen. In the United States, by comparison, the rhetoric has always been negative but the policy environment for investment has been more positive. That is why there has been a great deal of investment in the United States, as well as more innovation and more jobs created than in this country, even though we, through the Climate Change Act and other things, have tried to be, and appeared to be, world leaders.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman’s comments pass without intervening, but I will try to say this on a cross-party basis. The success in offshore wind, which is now quite remarkable and we need to keep it going, was built on the back of the pipeline that was set up during the period of a Labour Government. That Government—I was an Environment Minister at the time—put in place things such as the £60 million investment in the ports facilities that is now allowing Siemens to carry out manufacturing in this country, and gave the go-ahead for the licensing.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make those points. Quite a lot of the progress that has been made in the past five or six years was built on that, but in the 13 years of Labour Government remarkably little progress was made. If we compare the investment environment in renewable and other green technologies in the United States, despite all the negative rhetoric, with the investment there has been in this country, we do not come out all that strongly.

The second challenge that faces the Government, after UK decarbonisation, is helping others to fulfil their national contributions to the INDCs and to build confidence at each national level to go further. Thus, when we have the review in five years’ time, we will be able to raise the ambition so that we are not heading, as now, for under 3°, but are genuinely able to head for a sub-2° world. There is a tremendous amount to be done in engaging with parliamentarians. I should declare an interest as the chair of GLOBE International. Colleagues from across the Chamber attended the summit of legislators in Paris the weekend before last. We need to engage more with parliamentarians. That is equally true in Parliaments such as ours where, despite today’s attendance, there are remarkably few colleagues with much interest in or knowledge of the subject matter. We have to engage more people so that they take more interest and ensure that we get the frameworks that deliver the investment. There is a huge role for the UK to play in developing countries through climate diplomacy and work with GLOBE and others to make sure that we engage with these parliamentarians, who, after all, pass the laws, set the budgets, and hold Governments to account. That is certainly what GLOBE aims to do through its chapters around the world.

I want briefly to say something about flooding, following my earlier intervention on the Environment Secretary. The threat to the Humber is real and growing, with rising sea levels. Last December, we saw a bigger surge than in 1953. If the wind direction and other factors had been slightly different, there would almost certainly have been loss of life. This is a growing issue and we need to find a long-term solution. My personal thought is if we leave it to Governments, who have to decide between investment in schools, hospitals and so on, and long-term investment in flooding, they always have a tendency, when not under the shadow of a recent flooding disaster, to cut back that long-term investment. Would it not be better to set a regulatory standard on which we could rely by handing it over to water companies, whose job is to borrow money from the international markets and invest for the long term at the lowest possible cost, to deliver an agreed standard? If we had a statutory standard with a duty placed on those bodies to deliver, and all the water tax payers of the country picking it up, we would not only save the Chancellor from the cost hitting the Exchequer directly, but could have in place lower-cost intervention, to an agreed standard, for the long term, and stop having these fervent and heated debates every time we have a flood disaster, which, given climate change, is likely to happen more often in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

When we were in government, I played one part in the rather unhappy saga that is Heathrow. In response to the demand that we should approve Heathrow, I pushed for a separate target for aviation emissions. Of course that must also be looked at as part of the 1.5° target. There cannot simply be unconstrained expansion of aviation. The hon. Lady makes a good point.

Secondly, the agreement contains not just the 1.5° aim but a long-term goal of zero emissions. When I asked the Secretary of State about this yesterday, she said that she was happy pursuing the existing targets in the Climate Change Act. I think that those targets are very important, because I helped legislate for them, and I am very happy that she wants to make sure that we meet them. However, when I was Climate Change Secretary we had not had a global agreement for net zero emissions. We cannot possibly say, “We’ve got this global commitment to zero emissions in the second half of the century but it has no implications for UK domestic policy.” Of course we have to look at what it means for the UK.

My case to the Secretary of State, which I hope she will consider—I am not asking for an answer today—is that when the Energy Bill comes back to this House in the new year she amends it to ask the Committee on Climate Change to do something very simple, which is to look at this issue and make a recommendation to Government about when we should achieve zero emissions. That would do a number of things. It would send a cross-party message that Britain is determined to be a climate leader; the Secretary of State has talked eloquently about the impact that the Climate Change Act had, with cross-party support. It would also reduce, not increase, the costs of transition, because it would provide a clear trajectory to business and, indeed, to future Governments.

I say to Conservative Members, who have understandable concerns, that it would be supported by business. I am not the most radical person on this issue. The most radical people are, believe it or not, Richard Branson, Paul Polman of Unilever and Ratan Tata. They want not just what I am suggesting, but something much more radical—they want zero emissions by 2050. Perhaps that is what the Committee on Climate Change will concede, but my approach is much more pragmatic, as is that of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). Let us not pluck a figure out of the air—such as 2050—without having the experts look at it; let us look at what the implications of the global goal of zero emissions are for the UK. That is a very reasonable suggestion.

[Graham Stuart]

I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has just said about aiming for zero carbon. Does not the involvement of Unilever, Virgin and other businesses show that, if leadership and certainty is given, the investment conditions will be such that we will be able to get the money flowing, as I said in my speech, and jobs will be created here? If we lag behind with uncertainty, we will not have those jobs, and pioneering businesses will not establish themselves, invest or provide jobs here. If we are going to do it, it must benefit this country to the greatest extent possible.

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point. Every extra ounce of uncertainty raises the cost of capital. He and I have discussed that many times and that is what business people are saying, because they want that certainty. They are asking, “What are we working towards?” That is why all those leading businesses are putting it forward.

I do not want to say to the Secretary of State that this is easy, because it is a long way off, but it is an easy win for her. She would go down in history as the person who helped legislate for zero emissions, which is the ultimate backstop. When I was Secretary of State, the ultimate backstop was 80% reductions. Now we know from the global agreement that the ultimate backstop must be zero emissions at some point.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I am jealous of the time the hon. Gentleman is taking off me, and I will allow the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to respond on that point. I wish to make some progress, so that I can cover the interesting comments made by other Members.

With a global agreement, we signal to business that this is a definitive turning point. Business is crucial for delivering on our ambitions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) ably set out. He was in Paris over the weekend, leading with GLOBE International, where he was accompanied and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall). We know that in isolation, cuts to Britain’s own greenhouse gas emissions, which comprise just 1.2% of the global total, would do little to limit climate change. Our most important task therefore is to provide a compelling example to the rest of the world on how to cut carbon while controlling costs. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) has many spending commitments to recommend to us, but no more. In a tight spending review, he should welcome at least the increase in the renewable heat incentive budget. We are committed to meeting the UK’s 2050 target. We are on track for our next two carbon budgets, and we will be setting out our plans for meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets next year. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) questioned the fairness of the EU target of a 40% reduction by 2030, and I share his concern to ensure that it is fair. I can reassure him that we will be addressing that when we approach the effort sharing decisions next year.

We need to get the right balance between supporting new technologies and being tough on subsidies. When costs come down, as they have for wind and solar, so, too, should support. I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) for solar, but we will also always look after the bill payer. That is why I have announced that we will support and accelerate the cost reduction also being seen in offshore wind by making funding available for a further three auctions during this Parliament. That and other measures, such as supporting new nuclear and gas-fired power stations to provide a lower carbon base load, could provide us with the energy security we need to close unabated coal. We have also committed to double spending in clean energy research and development, so that by 2020 we will be spending in excess of £400 million. That is in recognition of the fact that we will tackle climate change only if we find technologies that are both clean and cheap.

[Graham Stuart]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Amber Rudd]

I am sorry, but I will not give way. As I was saying, that is the answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) about ambition and to the question highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). We will reach this ambition—the 2° is operational; the 1.5° is the aspiration—only through our plans to link with other countries in an international low-carbon energy innovation taskforce called Mission Innovation. That goes back to the leadership to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) referred, and we believe that we can achieve that.

The last Labour Government left behind in 2010 an energy security black hole: no nuclear power plants built; a legacy of under-investment; and low carbon targets and no plan to meet them. The advice of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) never considers the consumer. In her endless recommendations to increase subsidies, it is unknown what the Opposition actually have in their plan. It is clear to Conservative Members that a responsible national energy policy demands a willingness to take decisions today for the good of tomorrow. It is this Government who will not take any risks with our energy security, and that is why we agree with the position set out clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that shale would provide a low-carbon bridge. We will get on with the job of building a system of new energy infrastructure fit for the 21st century.

Question put.

Avian Influenza

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Many of my constituents work in egg production and poultry. Earlier today I was contacted by Elliott Eggs of Bewholme just outside the exclusion zone, which is already struggling to meet the supply demands of its supermarket customers. How will my right hon. Friend strike the balance between effective eradication of the problem and continued production, particularly in this festive season?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As my hon. Friend points out, the poultry and egg industry is a vital part of our food and farming sector, which contributes £100 billion to the economy. My answer to him is that the best way for us to do that is to deal with this as swiftly as possible and make sure that we eradicate the disease. That is why we have taken swift action. As I mentioned, the disease was notified to us on Friday. On that day Government vets visited the farm and an immediate restriction was placed on the farm. As soon as the analysis came back from the tests, the chief veterinary officer placed a restriction on a 10 km zone, so we are taking swift action to deal with the problem as soon as possible. All the previous disease outbreaks have shown that rapid, concerted, robust action needs to be taken.