Natural Capital (England and Wales)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Natural Capital Committee’s first annual State of Natural Capital report; and urges the Government to adopt the report’s recommendations and to take concerted action to embed the value of natural capital in the national accounts and policy-making processes as early as possible.

I declare my interest as chairman of the GLOBE International board and refer the House to my declaration of interests.

May I start by congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) on his appointment, which gives hope to the independent-minded everywhere? I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for granting this debate. Thanks are also due to the sponsors of the motion, representing all three main parties, including the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). I pay tribute to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for the role they played in steering the White Paper through Government.

I am pleased to see that the shadow Minister with responsibility for the natural environment, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), will be responding on behalf of the Opposition. Only a few weeks ago, it was he who persuaded the Backbench Business Committee to grant this debate, so it is gratifying to see that his efforts have been rewarded with such a swift promotion.

Today’s debate was inspired by the first report by the natural capital committee, chaired by Professor Dieter Helm. The report provides a framework—and a call to arms—for the Government to place a value on natural capital. Natural capital is the stock of resources derived from the environment in addition to geological resources such as fossil fuels and mineral deposits. These goods and services include material and non-material benefits such as crops, timber, water, climate regulation, natural hazard protection, soil function, mental health benefits from contact with nature, and biodiversity.

Without an economic price, too often natural capital has been treated as if it is of no value, yet it is a fundamental component of every country’s portfolio of wealth. For example, the UK has treated North sea oil purely as an income flow, with no allowance made for the fact that its use today depletes a national asset that cannot be replaced. By using it, we are, in effect, eating into our capital reserves, and it is right that we should acknowledge that when compiling our national accounts.

A private company is judged by both its income and its balance sheet, but most countries compile only an income statement showing their GDP and know very little about their national balance sheet on which it all depends. Even the income measure itself—GDP—fails properly to represent natural capital. Forestry provides a good example of this. Timber resources are counted in national accounts, but the other services forests provide, such as carbon retention and air filtration, are simply ignored. This all matters deeply.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Oscar Wilde famously spoke of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. If valuing nature in the way suggested will halt the current decline of our precious wildlife and habitats, it is to be welcomed, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need very strong safeguards, including in the planning system, to ensure that by putting a pound sign on priceless ecosystems such as ancient woodlands we do not inadvertently open the door to their destruction?

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention and she is right to sound a warning note. This whole area is embryonic and it needs to be treated very carefully to make sure that we do not end up with the exact opposite outcomes to those we seek by introducing such thinking in the first place.

In setting up the NCC, the Government said that their ambition was that this should be the first generation to leave behind a superior natural environment to the one it inherited. During the 20th century we placed unprecedented demands on global ecosystems. World population grew by a factor of four. Carbon and sulphur dioxide emissions increased by a factor of 10. Fish catch escalated by a multiple of 35. This has had serious consequences.

In 2011, the first UK national ecosystem assessment found that one third of the UK’s ecosystem services were declining. It showed that if the UK’s ecosystems were protected and enhanced, they could add at least an extra £30 billion to the UK economy. By contrast, neglect and loss of ecosystem services may cost as much as £20 billion a year to the economy. As the NCC report says:

“The risk is that rather than underpinning future growth and prosperity, degraded natural capital assets will act as a break on progress and development.”

The situation is worse in many places overseas. The World Bank estimates that in 2008, the costs of natural capital loss could have been as high as 5% of national income in Brazil, 8% in India and 9% in China. It found that the UK’s natural capital losses stood at just over 2% of national income, although that number is almost certainly incomplete.

The NCC report concludes:

“Until this is addressed, our national accounts will continue to provide erroneous signals about future economic prospects.”

To that end, the NCC recommends that the work being undertaken by the Office for National Statistics to embed natural capital in the UK’s environmental accounts should be given the “greatest possible support” right across Government.

The NCC’s report also recommends that the Government should initiate a programme to provide high-quality evidence on the economic value of changes in natural capital to inform cost-benefit analyses. Let us consider land use change. That may involve alterations in agricultural outputs, which have market prices, but it may also lead to changes in other factors which do not, including outdoor recreation, carbon storage and water quality. The best way to compare changes in such vastly different goods and services is to compare them in common, monetary terms. Developing a system that can achieve that reliably will not be straightforward.

There has been recent progress in this area. The Government’s 2011 natural environment White Paper made a welcome commitment fully to include natural capital in the UK environment accounts, with the first changes coming into effect this year. On the international stage, the adoption by the UN Statistical Commission of the system for environmental economic accounts has been a major step forward.

The prize is considerable. Measuring and accounting for changes in natural capital assets, and improving the valuation of those changes, would help to support better economic decision making. It would improve the delivery of major public policy goals, such as food and energy security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and public health and well-being. In saying that, it is crucial that natural capital accounting is explained as a way of providing detailed information for better management of the economy. That needs to be done in a way that is coherent internationally but that resonates at home with a public who are concerned about seeing the more immediate benefits of economic growth.

This is not some doom-laden call for us to trade off economic growth for environmental protection. Pre-Victorian England was a low-carbon economy, but it did not deliver too much by way of prosperity. Rather, this is about demonstrating that better policy can result from integrating the value of natural capital into decision making, especially in a world whose population is rising inexorably.

That applies to Government and the world of business. The NCC report calls on the Government to work with leading companies, accounting bodies, landowners and managers to develop and test guidance on best practice in corporate natural capital accounting. As the chief financial officer of Unilever, Jean-Marc Huët, has said:

“The current financial reporting model only tells half the story about a business’s true performance and potential. The numbers say little of its reliance and impact on natural capital, factors that will increasingly influence competitiveness in a resource-scarce world.”

The NCC report is therefore an important document at all levels of policy making: national, local and commercial.

It was particularly welcome that the publication of the NCC report coincided with the launch earlier this year of the GLOBE International natural capital initiative. That is an international policy process driven by national parliamentarians, with the aim of incorporating the valuation of natural capital into policy and economic decision making.

In June this year, legislators from 20 countries participated in the first GLOBE natural capital legislation summit in the Bundestag. The summit considered the international context of the forthcoming UN post-2015 sustainable development goals, and how natural capital accounting should be addressed as a specific goal as well as a cross-cutting theme that affects the delivery of all development goals. For those who are living on less than $2 a day, half of all GDP comes from the environment and its biodiversity. It was therefore encouraging that goal 9 of the recent report of the high-level panel of eminent persons on the post-2015 development agenda, which was co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, emphasised the importance of the sustainable management of natural resource assets to poverty eradication.

The GLOBE summit in June called on Governments everywhere fully to incorporate the value of natural capital into national accounting frameworks by 2020. It saw the publication of the first GLOBE natural capital legislation study, which reviewed the measures that eight countries, including the UK, are taking to integrate natural capital into policy and economic decision making. Unquestionably, there is a long way to go before natural capital is incorporated in national and corporate accounting across the world. However, the GLOBE study shows that the direction of travel is clear and that the eight countries covered, including the UK, are leading the way.

Embedding the concept of natural capital could mark a milestone on the road towards a more nuanced and complete understanding of our nation’s resources and the impact of our management of them. I congratulate the Government on the letter sent by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) in response to the report. I welcome its statement that

“The measurement, valuation and good management of our natural capital is crucial if we are to achieve sustainable economic growth and enhanced wellbeing in future.”

However, is that to be the only response from the Government, other than in this debate? My Select Committee insists on a formal Government response to each recommendation that is made in each of its reports. Surely these annual reports deserve just as serious and thorough a response.

Do the Government agree that there is a need for a framework with which to define and measure natural capital? If so, do they think that progress is being made quickly enough? Will they set up a risk register for natural capital, as is recommended in the NCC report, and if so, when? Will they give the Office for National Statistics the “greatest possible support” in its efforts to incorporate natural capital into the nation’s accounts, as recommended by the NCC?

The valuation of natural capital goes to the heart of the biggest question facing humanity: can we adjust our behaviour so as to live within the constraints of living on one planet? Can we live in balance with the natural world, or will we insist on testing its limits?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

As always, the hon. Lady anticipates what I am about to say. This has been a long-standing matter of concern both to myself and to the Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair. It is vital that the mechanism for integrating natural capital values into policy in the UK is reflected in the green book. I understand, as far as the green book is concerned, that a review is currently in progress.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the lack of representation on the Treasury Bench by a Minister from the Treasury. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) identified correctly the importance of having the Chancellor at the head of this process, so it is essential that we have a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench, too.

[Joan Walley]

There is agreement on this on all sides of the House. If policy decisions from the Treasury lock us in to investment for many years to come, we will be prevented from including the true value of natural capital in how those decisions are reached. Parliament has to find a way of having shared responsibility reflected in the Chamber. I hope the commitment, which I am sure we will hear from the Minister when he comes to reply, will be reflected in the Treasury, and that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs understands that the debate is about the economy not just in rural areas, but in each and every part of regeneration policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady, whose chairmanship of the Select Committee is redoubtable, is absolutely right that that is clear in certain Departments but not in others. The way we value the input, as a number of Members have already indicated, is precisely the way contained in the natural capital committee’s first report to Parliament. The first thing we have to do—I will move on to this in more detail a little later—is to get each Department to create an inventory stating what capital it owns, what capital it affects and what capital it influences. Once we get Departments to look at it in that way, they can feed that into the Treasury so that better cost-benefit analysis is done and better economic decisions and policies are made.

Some of our political colleagues act as if they are still living in the 19th century. They believe that economic prosperity and environmental protection are destined to be in conflict with each other, but in fact the opposite is true. In 2011 the green economy made up just 6% of the economy, but it accounted for 30% of all growth.

Those on the economic right fall into the trap of thinking that the environment is the enemy of growth, but it is not. Their conclusion is that we must sacrifice the environment in order to achieve growth. But for those of us on the economic left there is an equivalent trap. Some on the left actually seem to agree with the economic right. Their claim is simply put the other way around: that economic growth is the enemy of the environment. Their conclusion is that we must sacrifice growth to achieve environmental protection. Both are wrong, of course, and they are wrong because they are locked into the same language of economic growth and environmental protection. They have failed to move into the new paradigm of economic wealth and environmental sustainability. There is a reason for that: the new paradigm requires a proper understanding of the value of natural capital, and not just an understanding of it, but a proper accounting of it.

What competent business would fail to carry out a proper inventory of its assets? Yet that is precisely what we as a country have done. We have not looked at the stocks and flows of natural capital and properly assessed them. In the UK we are beginning to introduce a fundamental change in environmental policy. Instead of focusing on individual species or habitats, we are pioneering an approach based on whole ecosystems. We commissioned the UK’s national ecosystem assessment, which has established that 30% of the UK’s ecosystems are in decline and that many others are only just holding their own against an increasingly hostile background of rising population, consumption and pollution. However, the Government have not yet taken the important step of instructing all Departments to create an inventory of the natural capital assets they own, utilise and affect. The Minister should speak to his colleagues in Government to ensure that that happens.

Quantifying the problem is the beginning of a solution. In the national ecosystem assessment, we have begun to put a value on the contribution of ecosystem goods and services to human well-being. The market has long known how to exploit the benefits of nature, whether by dumping waste at sea or chopping down rainforests with no thought for the wider damage that it was doing. But now, the most progressive businesses are beginning to understand the importance of sustainable supply chains. They are beginning to see the business imperative to reduce their own corporate risk profile and are now seeing genuine advantage in being net positive for the environment.

The establishment of the natural capital committee in response to the United Nations convention to combat desertification conference of the parties in Nagoya in 2010 is a significant and positive move on the part of the Government. I welcome it. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Meriden for how she steered the issue through Government. She also established that the committee should report to the economic sub-committee of the Cabinet. Her officials had put to her that it should report to her as Secretary of State, but she decided that it should report elsewhere, knowing full well that a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was perhaps less powerful than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She played a significant role in ensuring that the natural capital committee had the prospect of real success and traction. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) was entirely right to say that we should also have had a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench this evening.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman no doubt anticipates what I am about to say. He agrees that there should have been a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench tonight. It would also have been extremely helpful if Her Majesty’s Opposition had managed to get a shadow Treasury Minister, who are a great deal less busy than actual Treasury Ministers, to join us.

[Barry Gardiner]

I heartily endorse that. I will ensure that all these remarks are conveyed to my colleagues on the shadow Treasury Front Bench. I give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that they will get copies of my speech.

Having a Treasury Minister here would have truly shown that the Government were not just paying lip service to the idea of natural capital but were listening to the recommendations of the natural capital committee— namely, that the Government should establish a framework to measure and account better for changes in natural capital assets, and to improve the valuation of those changes and how they are fed into policy decisions.

The natural capital committee points out that the Government need to establish a risk register for natural capital assets that will clearly identify potential resource constraints or tipping points that may arise from the further degradation of our biodiversity. It insists that the implications for business supply chains from the loss of key natural resources must become a fundamental part of national economic planning. It recommends that the Office for National Statistics should include natural capital fully in the UK’s environmental accounts and that we should be working with business to develop guidance on corporate natural capital accounting.

I pay particular tribute to the work conducted by the Prince of Wales’s accounting for sustainability project. A4S has worked with strategic corporate partners to identify $72 trillion of resources and environmental services that classically have been omitted from corporate balance sheets around the globe, to enable those businesses better to understand the risks to their own supply chains and ultimately their future sustainability unless they change their business model for one that respects and properly values natural capital.

The Government should follow the prince’s initiative in involving business in accounting for natural capital. Will the Minister say whether he agrees with the suggestion of asking companies to prepare annual corporate sustainability reports for shareholders as part of their reporting cycle, in line with the business-led corporate sustainability reporting coalition’s recommendations?

Let me say this loud and clear: some things are beyond price. Some values cannot be monetised. It is not just that the aesthetic and spiritual values of a mountain are difficult to quantify; we should not even try. We must recognise that those values should not be traded in any market. They are not directly comparable and we must not attempt to compare them on a like-for-like basis in any cost-benefit analysis. However, to recognise that is not to accede to the demands of the fundamentalists of both right and left that we should not sensibly ascribe a value to the mountain for the tourism benefits that it generates or the watershed services that it provides. These are real economic values and we conduct our policy decision making in wilful and deliberate ignorance if we ignore them. This is not to commoditise nature; it is to ensure that the true value of nature is not ignored and treated as a free good by those who for decades have peddled a false theory of value that has allowed them to trash the environment with impunity.

The proper valuation of our natural capital is a means to its better protection, not a tariff sheet of charges for its destruction. The Secretary of State recently made several remarks that are deeply worrying because they have implied precisely the opposite. In his speech to the Association of National Park Authorities last month, he suggested that the protection of our finest countryside could be traded away to the highest bidder. This is quite simply a disgrace, and an ignorant one at that. Anyone with the slightest understanding of biodiversity offsetting knows that there is a hierarchy of principles that it must follow, foremost among which is that offsetting cannot downgrade or amend the existing levels of protection for biodiversity. The Secretary of State, by his ignorant, unscientific and dogma-driven approach, has shown himself to be incapable of leading the Government’s important work on natural capital and has probably done more to undermine the undoubted benefits that could flow from a proper system of biodiversity offsetting than any of the open-toed-sandal anti-development campaigners whom he so clearly despises .

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness mentioned the work of the UN Statistical Commission on the system of environmental economic accounting. The UN has adopted SEEA as a new international accounting standard. It is important for the Minister to indicate to the House the Government’s commitment to develop the SEEA proposals and incorporate natural capital fully into their accounting framework by 2020.

I am also delighted that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of GLOBE International and its excellent natural capital initiative. I had the honour of chairing the national capital legislation summit that he mentioned which took place in the Bundestag this summer. I agree with the importance that he placed on incorporating natural capital into the first 2015 sustainable development goals. I should like to put on record my thanks and appreciation for the support of the German Government, who have consistently, and with great vision, understood the importance of this work in tackling global poverty as well as in addressing issues of climate change and biodiversity.

It has long been a fundamental principle that the polluter should pay. All too often, though, the polluter has got away with it because nobody has been able to answer the question, “How much?” In the UK we have set up the natural capital committee to ensure that the market and the non-market values of the public goods that nature provides are taken into account in all policy decision making. Our goal must be to incorporate these values into the standard Treasury method of cost-benefit analysis, our purpose being to stop those who seek to exploit the goods and services that nature provides by diminishing her continued ability to provide the essential ecosystem services and public goods that the rest of society needs.

The state of natural capital in the UK is at a critical point. Thirty per cent. of it is in decline, and action now is essential. The natural capital committee has produced an important report, but the Government must listen to what it says and implement its recommendations.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) for bringing this motion to the House. He has consistently championed the cause of the environment, and he made a number of incredibly important points in his speech. Like many others, I acknowledge the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). It is important to recognise that a lot of the work we are doing now stemmed from the natural environment White Paper. After having been elected, one of the first things I did early in this Parliament was to attend the launch of that document at Kew. I remember it well. It was a very important piece of work, and she is to be commended for it.

To prove that there can be some cross-party consensus on this issue, I acknowledge the work that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has done through his chairmanship of the all-party group on biodiversity and his consistent interest in its potential. However, I must take a little issue with his strong criticism of the Secretary of State. I can vouch for the fact that my right hon. Friend believes passionately in these issues, of which he is a real champion. He regularly speaks to Dieter Helm, the chairman of the natural capital committee. I therefore do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s criticism on that front, but perhaps we can come back to that later.

As every Member who has spoken has said, the state of natural capital is a crucial issue and the scale of the problem is great. Recent studies, such as the national ecosystem assessment and the “State of Nature” report prepared by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others, drew on the excellent work of experts and volunteers across the country. They have reinforced the Government’s view about the worrying trends in the state of our natural assets.

We are constantly learning more about the complex mutual dependencies that underpin our vital ecosystems, but we are also finding evidence that shows that these intricate systems are, indeed, under threat. As many Members have said, 30% of the UK’s ecosystems are in decline. The numbers of specialist farmland birds, for example, have plummeted.

Although the overall condition of the natural environment is a cause for concern, we should also acknowledge that there have been some significant success stories that demonstrate what can be achieved when there is a will to do so. For example, environmental legislation has helped to transform many of our watercourses, and rivers that were once notoriously polluted now sustain a variety of wildlife. Of course, although these successes are heartening, important aspects of our natural environment are still in decline. The status quo is therefore not acceptable and a concerted effort on the part of Government and society is necessary to turn things around.

As part of their efforts to halt and reverse degradation of our natural environment, this Government have pledged to improve their understanding and measurement of England’s natural capital. It is, therefore, extremely encouraging to hear that the Government’s commitment to advancing the natural capital agenda is shared by Members from across the political spectrum.

A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), have said that a Treasury Minister should be present instead of me. All I can say is that I am passionate about this issue and I am here to represent the Government. It is usually only one Minister who responds to this type of debate. Members have said that they would have preferred a Treasury Minister to be present and I will not take that personally, but I am afraid that tonight you’ve got me. It is important to note that the Treasury is heavily involved in this issue. The response to the NCC’s first report was co-signed by the Secretary of State and the then Economic Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid).

A number of Members have asked what we are doing to get the principles into the green book. I have three points to make in response to that important question. First, following the publication of the natural environment White Paper in June 2011, the Treasury and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published in 2012 supplementary green book guidance on accounting, so consideration has already been given to including environmental impacts in cost-benefit analyses by Government Departments.

Secondly, I reassure Members that the NCC is currently in discussions with the Treasury and DEFRA about developing the green book so that we can take further steps. Thirdly, DEFRA has commissioned a baseline evaluation study to review how well recent impact assessments across government take into account environmental impacts. We are, therefore, taking a number of steps.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I wonder whether the Minister took note of my point about the Government response—the letter. He has just laid out how the Government are responding in a serious way, but will he undertake that when the next state of natural capital report is published in nearly a year, it will receive as full a response as that which we would expect for a Select Committee report?

[George Eustice]

I hope my hon. Friend will find that the remainder of my speech will pick up on a lot of the themes of the 13 recommendations made by the NCC report.

[Mr Stuart]

I recognise that my hon. Friend is new to his post and that he is in a difficult position, but it really would be helpful if he could commit on the record to provide a full response to next year’s report. This debate was called not by the Government, but by the Backbench Business Committee, and we cannot rely on a debate such as this to ensure that the Government are held to account on something so important.

[George Eustice]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. Lord de Mauley leads on this element of the Department’s portfolio and I speak on it in the House of Commons. I will discuss the point that my hon. Friend has made with him.

It is not surprising that there is a consensus that natural capital matters. It underpins fundamental aspects of all our lives. We rely on natural capital for the air that we breathe, the food that we eat and the water that we drink. It is also a crucial source of energy and well-being. It will play a central role in mitigating the potential impacts of climate change. It may even provide the key to scientific and technological innovations. It is the foundation on which our economy is built. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) gave a fabulous quotation from John Aspinall:

“Nature is the bank upon which all cheques are drawn.”

That is very true.

Despite its importance, we have taken natural capital for granted. For too long, the value of our natural capital has been disregarded and, as a consequence, degraded. In the past 50 years, in spite of growing environmental awareness, many of the pressures on the natural environment have accelerated. Short-term, short-sighted economic gains have been prioritised. Too often, that has come at the expense of the natural environment. It is clear that if the habit of eroding our natural capital assets is allowed to continue, it will ultimately, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, be at the expense of future generations and their economic well-being. If economic growth is not sustainable, frankly, it will not be sustained. If we do not actively attempt to understand the true value of natural capital, we will continue to set its value, wrongly, at zero.

Many people in the UK already place a value on nature. Members may well have heard enough about the BBC for one day, but the growth in popularity of programmes such as the BBC’s “Countryfile” demonstrates that we are a nation that cares passionately about the natural environment. The widespread appreciation of nature’s intrinsic value, the importance of which many Members have highlighted, is demonstrated by the large memberships of groups such as the RSPB and the wildlife trusts. To those who say that unless we put a monetary value on something, it is not valued, I say that that is not the way that the public see it. They see a great intrinsic value in our natural environment.

Valuing our natural assets in terms of their worth to the economy in pounds and pence is a challenging exercise. We will have to involve the dedicated efforts of world experts to come up with the right calculations. However, it is important that we do not see valuing nature as just a dry, academic exercise that is performed by accountants. The natural capital agenda must, and will, have a practical application that will lead to real outcomes in our natural environment. If we want to protect nature, we need to make better decisions about how we use it. Those decisions will be better informed when we have properly measured and valued our natural capital.

That is why the Government set up the natural capital committee in 2012. In doing so, we were acting as a global leader. We now lead the way by having an independent group of experts that reports on where our natural assets are being used unsustainably. Ultimately, the committee will advise the Government on how we can prioritise action to address the most pressing risks to our natural capital. That advice will better enable the Government to fulfil their vision, first set out in the natural environment White Paper of 2011, of being

“the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than it inherited.”

With that vision in mind, I read with interest the committee’s first state of natural capital report, which was published in April this year. It set out a framework for how the committee would deliver its ambitious work programme. The report highlighted just how high the stakes are for the environment and the economy in work that the committee is doing. The committee argued powerfully that the environment and the economy are not rival priorities that have to be traded off against each other, but that environmental and economic interests can and must be aligned. The report set out how that beneficial alignment can be realised.

Although we have enough data to be confident that our natural assets, for the main part, are being degraded, we do not measure directly changes in their extent or quality on a widespread basis and we do not account for them in national or business accounts. It is therefore not currently possible to identify systematically which natural capital assets are being used unsustainably, but the work of the committee aims to get a better handle on that.

The committee’s first report not only set out the need for a framework to measure and value our natural assets, but contained a number of recommendations to help get that framework in place. When the report was published, the committee promised to follow up in its second and third reports—due in early 2014 and 2015 respectively—with more specific advice about where assets are at risk of not being used sustainably, and what needs to be done about it.

The Government support the analysis set out in the NCC’s first state of natural capital report, as detailed in the joint letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness referred to from the Environment Secretary and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The letter stated:

“We welcome the report’s conclusions and we look forward to working with the Committee as they and others advance this agenda.”

I can report that good progress has been made on the recommendations contained in the report, by both the Government and the NCC. For example, in order to determine whether we are on a sustainable path, the NCC has commenced two pieces of work to help understand which assets are in decline—and to what extent—as well as which are most at risk. The NCC will report on its initial findings in its next report. We are interested to see how that might inform other Government policies, such as biodiversity offsetting, which a number of hon. Members—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden—have mentioned.

On national and corporate accounting, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent North, good progress is being made. On national natural capital accounting, the NCC is working closely with the ONS and DEFRA to implement the road map to 2020 that the ONS published in December 2012, setting out its timetable for producing natural capital accounts. On the corporate side, the NCC is engaging with a series of major businesses and landowners. It is about to undertake a series of pilot projects with a selection of those businesses in order to trial natural capital accounting in a real-world context and see whether it is an effective tool for encouraging businesses to operate on a more sustainable basis.

Let me touch on some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness raised at the end of his contribution. He asked for a response to each of the 13 recommendations, and as I have said, I will take his comments back to my noble Friend Lord de Mauley. A lot of those recommendations are being taken forward by the NCC, and many others are addressed in the good “Accounting for the value of nature in the UK” report by the ONS.

A number of Members asked whether we believe that the framework should be developed, and the Government agree that it should be. That is a task for the NCC, which is working further on that. Importantly, the committee is not doing just a single one-off report that is then placed in the Government’s hands; it is continuing to work on many of these elements. Many hon. Members raised the importance of developing a risk register, and I confirm that the second report from the committee will look further at a risk register and at highlighting those areas where we use our natural environment in an unsustainable way. The next report will contain the first steps in that direction.

In conclusion, we are very much looking forward to the NCC’s second report, due to be published in spring 2014, and to the more specific recommendations we expect it to contain. We are particularly interested in what it might have to say about a proposal for a long-term strategic plan to ensure the preservation and recovery of natural capital in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Thank you, as ever, for your strictures, Mr Speaker.

It has been a great pleasure to take part in the debate. We have heard high-quality speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) followed my speech and showed a strong understanding of the key issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), in so many ways the architect of the current situation, spoke of offsetting and of the economic importance of humble bees and pollinators. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) mentioned the green book—the Minister did not mention that, but perhaps we will hear more from him about it in due course—and the role of natural capital in the sustainable development goals. She also referred to other Departments and asked whether the Minister is in touch with them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) put his finger on one of the most important challenges that we face. For the most part, we are a group of the usual suspects, talking about natural capital late at night. In the Tea Room earlier, a colleague said, “In eight years in this place, I have never looked at the title of the debate and not known what it was about—until now. Well done, Graham, you’ve got a debate I don’t understand.” My hon. Friend correctly identified the importance not only of the Breconshire young farmers, but of communicating properly with them so they understand what on earth we are talking about. If we do not achieve that, in a few years, the same group of usual suspects will be discussing the topic without wider resonance.

[Joan Walley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is one reason why there should be a measure to include the subject in education legislation?

[Mr Stuart]

I feared the hon. Lady would try to nail me personally on that—I spend my time chairing the Select Committee on Education resisting the forcible addition of financial education and a plethora of other subjects into the national curriculum—but I will bear her remarks in mind and see whether I can reconsider my almost-ideological response.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made a powerful speech. He said that reconciling the market with the environment is essential to our survival—one of a few memorable quotes from the debate. He also asked whether the Government as a whole are ready for the challenge, which neatly summed up a question included in many speeches.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), using his experience of Government machinery, focused laser-like on questioning whether the machinery is in place to ensure that natural capital debates are not a minority sport that take place late at night in the Chamber, and that they begin to influence Government policy in all Departments.

Because of my history with the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), it hurts me to say that he made a barnstorming and powerful speech. He spoke of not only halting but reversing environmental loss. He spoke with both passion and knowledge and managed to convey them succinctly and effectively. He said that people in the Treasury could be reasonable as long as we speak to them in their language. He gave us two quotes. First, he said that we use nature because it is valuable, but abuse it because it is free, which goes to the heart of the debate. Secondly, in defence of that approach, he said that promoting the concept of natural capital was not to commoditise nature, but to ensure its protection.

We heard an excellent speech from the Minister, who, as he said, has been interested in natural capital for a long time—he was at the launch of the White Paper a few years ago. He and the other Ministers in his Department have a great challenge, but there is a wider challenge across the Government. That is the central issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park made the point that, in future, we need Treasury Ministers and colleagues who do not habitually focus on this policy on the Treasury Bench in such debates. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is the Minister for civil society there as he, too, has long taken an interest in natural capital.

With that, I draw the debate to a close.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Natural Capital Committee’s first annual State of Natural Capital report; and urges the Government to adopt the report’s recommendations and to take concerted action to embed the value of natural capital in the national accounts and policy-making processes as early as possible.

Rio+20 Summit

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee following our report on the preparations for the Rio+20 summit. I am pleased that so many members of the Committee are in the Chamber. I am grateful that the Minister is in his place and say at the outset that I acknowledge that the Secretary of State is on other urgent business to do with this topic. We welcome the Minister and look forward to his comments.

All parliamentarians must engage with this issue; those of us on Select Committees are legislators who are there to hold the Government to account. We have already seen, in organisations such as GLOBE International, what a powerful contribution Members of Parliament from different Parliaments around the world can make on these important matters.

The report is the first by our Committee to be debated on an estimates day. The timing of the debate could not be better. This morning, along with other MPs, I was privileged to be able to attend the launch of the report, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet”, which comes from the high-level panel on global sustainability set up by the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and which was presented to us by Janos Pasztor. In their report, he and the panel members make a truly powerful case for global change, and that is what we have to address in the run-up to the Rio+20 summit. This debate also comes after the publication of the zero draft of the United Nations outcome document for the summit.

We began the Select Committee inquiry early, starting last spring, so that we had time to examine what the Government are doing to make Rio+20 a success and so that we could play a part in getting attention for the summit, including the pre-summit events, the actual negotiations and, crucially, the follow-up work that will be needed. If action was needed at the first Rio Earth summit, 20 years on we need solutions more than ever. Governments and politicians the world over need to get their act sorted. Equally, we have to take this to every community around the UK and to the people we live next to and work with. People in countries, towns and cities the world over need to urge the decision makers to do more.

Whatever agreements are reached at Rio, the summit is not just about one country or one negotiating bloc; it is about developing and developed countries, the haves and the have-nots, and not just one generation, but future generations. This Rio conference will affect us all today, tomorrow and in the days and years ahead. We therefore have to make it a high-level event, where we change the way in which we do politics. It is a crossroads. From now on, policies should be formulated and budgets made on the basis of what is right for the long term. We should give notice that we will change course because we believe that following a more sustainable path will enhance human well-being, further global justice, strengthen gender equity and preserve the earth’s life-support systems for future generations.

We all know that it is 150 days to the start of the Olympics. I wonder whether people in Parliament and out there are aware of the countdown to Rio. There is a bit of a paradox here. We have to be cautious and guard against the impression that this summit is the be-all and end-all. We have to remind ourselves that no instant wins or quick fixes are likely to arise from it. Rather, we need a change of direction. Rio+20 must be seen as a starting-off point for new initiatives, rather than a signing-off point to end a process.

The Select Committee report calls on the Prime Minister to attend the summit to show the UK’s commitment. His office informed us that he would not be able to do so because of a clash of dates with the diamond jubilee celebrations. That seems to have prompted the United Nations and Brazil to move the summit to later in June to allow not just the Prime Minister, but other Heads of Government to attend. The response to the report states that decisions about who will attend Rio, apart from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will be decided on later, as will the decision on the need for a special envoy. Right from the word go, the Government have to be careful not to be on the back foot. This matter has to be clarified.

I have no quarrel whatever with the Secretary of State going out there. It is vital that she attends. I know that she is very committed and that she has been involved in all the preliminary stages. However, I believe that for the full backing of the team, the Prime Minister needs to be there, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, the scientists and the business leaders. The UK team have to make their mark. At a time when the world is changing; when environmental debt needs to be as high up the agenda as economic debt; when we face temperature rise and biodiversity loss unless we learn to live within our planetary boundaries; and when we have one opportunity for the international community to frame the new priorities and to work out how we will each, individually and collectively, engage with this matter, we need the UK Prime Minister to be there, actively shaping the new agenda and understanding what alliances are being forged.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that as we are a global leader in embedding natural capital in the national accounts, which I hope will be a central feature of the summit in Rio later in the year, the Prime Minister has a strong story to tell? He will be able not only to boast of our work in that area, but to share it and further strengthen our alliance with the Brazilians, who are an emerging and important power.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the previous speakers.

The Earth Summit in 1992 was a timely and significant international event that brought together 172 countries, more than 100 of which were represented by their leaders. It led to the creation of the UN conventions on biological diversity, the framework convention on climate change, the principles on sustainable forestry and Local Agenda 21, all of which were designed to tackle the unsustainable use of natural resources and reduce man’s impact on the environment. Twenty years later, however, as leaders are about to meet again in Rio, we have to be honest about where we are. The state of the environment has worsened significantly, with many of the natural resources on which we all depend under ever-increasing strain in many areas, including oceans and forests, biodiversity and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, we can all point to significant advances in parts of the world—for example, the significant decrease in deforestation in Brazil—and to political processes such as the recent outcome of the Durban climate negotiations, but all the scientific indicators are flashing red.

The question is why? It is not that we committed to the wrong policies at Rio 20 years ago and in Johannesburg 10 years later; it is that Governments have failed properly to implement their commitments. If we are to ensure that Rio+20 warrants the participation of leaders again, we need to recognise that three key parts of the Rio jigsaw were missing, so that that implementation was always likely to be difficult. First, there was a lack of domestic legislation to underpin the Rio principles and conventions; secondly, there was a lack of credible and independent international scrutiny outside the governmental processes to monitor and scrutinise governmental delivery; and thirdly, the international community failed to convert the Rio agenda into a language that would hold sway in the most powerful Ministries in each Government—namely, the Treasuries and Finance Ministries.

Perversely, we still focus on GDP as the indicator of national wealth, when clearly it is only a partial measure that does not take into account the stock of natural capital on which we all depend and all economies rely. One reason for the failure to look after and steward natural capital is the absence of effective recognition within the national accounts of what capital there is. A country can grow while becoming poorer as it destroys the natural capital on which its future prosperity depends. If Rio+20 is to be a success, we must address these three challenges. That is why I am so pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss Rio+20.

We should not leave it to Governments, who have not done a particularly strong job. As previous speakers, not least the Chairman of the Select Committee, have said, we need to step up as legislators. We need to ensure that in Chambers such as this across the world, we hold our Governments to account and ensure that they deliver on the promises they make in high-falutin’ speeches at high-falutin’ summits. As the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the formal announcement of the Rio+20 world summit of legislators:

“Parliamentarians have a profound influence. You enact legislation. You approve budgets. You are at the heart of democratic governance. And in today’s increasingly interconnected world, you are also a link between the global and local—bringing local concerns into the global arena, and translating global standards into national action.”

I am not sure that we have been good at translating global standards into national action. The international presidency of GLOBE International rests with the UK parliamentary group, and the right honourable John Gummer, now Lord Deben, is serving as the president of GLOBE. As the president of GLOBE in the House of Commons, I am delighted to say that the Government of Brazil and the United Nations Secretary-General have both recognised that a new process is required at Rio+20 to remedy the underlying weaknesses that I have mentioned. That process will be overseen by the global legislators’ organisation, GLOBE. With the support of the United Nations Secretary-General and the Government of Brazil, as well as the visionary mayor of Rio, Eduardo Paes, the world summit of legislators will be launched. The summit will involve more than 300 Speakers of Parliaments, Presidents of Congresses and Senates, and senior legislators. It will mark the beginning of a new international process for legislators that is dedicated to establishing a mechanism that scrutinises and monitors Governments on the delivery of the original Rio agenda and the conventions on climate, desertification and biodiversity, as well as any further commitments made at Rio+20.

The summit will have three core objectives. The first is scrutiny. Recognising the role of legislators in monitoring and scrutinising the work of Governments, the summit will establish a mechanism at the international level to monitor the implementation by Governments of commitments made at Rio+20. The summit will develop a set of Rio scrutiny principles to strengthen legislators’ capacity to hold Governments to account. The second objective is legislation. Recognising the role of legislators in developing and passing laws, the summit will provide a platform to advance and share best legislative practice, as well as to promote a mechanism in international processes that can recognise national legislation. The third objective is on natural capital. Recognising the role of many countries’ Parliaments in approving budgets and national accounts, the summit will examine how the value of natural capital can be integrated in our national economic frameworks, to enable legislators better to monitor the use of natural capital.

Based on those objectives, the summit participants will negotiate a Rio+20 legislators’ protocol. They will be asked to make a commitment to take it back to their respective legislatures to seek support for, or formal ratification of, the protocol. Legislators will then be asked to reconvene in Rio every two years to monitor progress in implementing the Rio+20 outcomes, as well as to share best legislative practice. It is therefore with great pleasure that, on behalf of the President of the Brazilian Senate, I formally invite Mr Speaker to lead a delegation from this House to attend the summit of legislators. I shall be pleased to present the President’s invitation after the debate.

The world summit of legislators would not have been possible without the commitment of legislators from the Senate and Congress of Brazil. With the support of the President of the Brazilian Congress, Senator José Sarney, and the relentless efforts of the President of GLOBE Brazil and First Secretary of the Brazilian Senate, Senator Cicero Lucena, that process would not be taking place. Likewise, it is with the support of the mayor of Rio, Eduardo Paes, that the summit will have a home in Rio.

In concluding, let me say that the UK has an extremely important role to play at Rio+20. The UK has made a series of significant commitments to incorporate the value of natural capital into its accounts—a radical step, and one that shows that the Prime Minister is delivering on his promise to lead the greenest Government ever. In fact, that step alone has the potential to be one of the most radical changes to the way in which we operate our economy. I am delighted that it is under this Chancellor that the UK natural capital committee build on this experience, which provides concrete and practical actions that can be taken at national level. That radical yet sensible agenda can be presented by our Prime Minister at Rio in person, I hope. I urge him to attend personally, following the G20 in Mexico, and I believe that the international process would benefit from his contribution. I also urge his personal support for President Dilma in that undertaking, as Brazil and the UK have the potential to be much closer allies.

I urge the Government to support the world summit of legislators and ensure that it is appropriately acknowledged and recognised in the leaders’ communiqué at Rio+20. I know that the Secretary of State has been asked to meet GLOBE to discuss the issue. If parliamentarians are properly engaged, we can deliver on our nation’s promises, give weight to the needs of future generations, not just our own, and deliver sustainable development not as a soundbite, but in reality.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for tabling this motion? I could not have wanted a better form of words in order to extol the virtues of this Government and to point out the manifest failings of the previous one. If I had a better handle on the usual channels, as I think they are called, I might have got a member of the Backbench Business Committee to produce just such a motion, because it allows me to discuss some of the excellent things that we are doing to make this the greenest Government ever.

I start by apologising on behalf of the Secretary of State for the fact that she is not here. I know that many members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would have liked to be here too. However, there is a courtesy, which the Secretary of State feels very strongly, which says that Select Committees are very important for holding Ministers to account. We took that view in opposition, and now we are in government we intend to ensure that we make ourselves available when Select Committees wish to question us at length.

With her customary generosity of spirit and her sunny nature, the hon. Member for Wakefield made a number of points about the Government, but perhaps failed to mention some of the good things. I hope she and the House will forgive me if I comment on the wording of the motion and on where we are moving forward. On environmental technologies, the hon. Lady did not feel the urge to mention the £3 billion that has been invested through the green investment bank, and she felt unable to talk about the vast amounts that that will generate in the private sector, or about the 26 million homes that will benefit from the green deal, which is the largest retrofit of infrastructure in our homes to benefit those on low incomes and make us a greener country.

The hon. Lady did not talk about the fourth carbon budget, which so many groups recognised and praised us for achieving, or about Ian Cheshire of the Kingfisher Group, who will be leading business opportunities for green growth. In this financial year alone, £1.7 billion has been invested in environmental technologies, creating 9,000 jobs all over the country.

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

The Minister is acutely aware of how devastated east Yorkshire was by flooding in 2007. One of the most worrying aspects of the Labour party manifesto was a promise to cut capital spending by 50%. Will he assure us that flood protection will get the required investment, and that this Government are committed to flood protection in a way that the Labour party were not before the last election?

[Richard Benyon]

Before the election, the previous Chancellor announced that there would be a 50% cut in DEFRA’s capital spend. If Labour had won that election, it might have said that it would not cut flood protection, but in that case, what would it have cut? The hon. Member for Wakefield used the tired old argument that if we are to compare apples with apples, we must compare this Government with the last two years of the previous one. However, in this four years, there is an 8% cut compared with the previous four years. Bearing in mind the cuts across the Government and the appalling legacy that we were left, we have made flooding an absolute priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I do not want to get into a long economic debate, but the hon. Gentleman is right in one sense. Green growth, if we do it right, could create jobs. I am afraid that I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that this is an entirely binary issue involving either growth or the environment. The Government firmly believe that the two go together, and our policies reflect that.

The Government have an ambitious programme to protect and enhance our natural environment. Given the unprecedented financial difficulties, we cannot simply pull the financial levers to deliver change. Instead, we are committed to leading by example, being the greenest Government ever, mainstreaming sustainable development and enabling the value of the natural environment and biodiversity to be reflected when decisions are made. In the past 17 months, we have made good progress. We have a strong track record of environmental leadership, at home and internationally. We have published the national eco-system assessment, the first analysis of the benefits that the UK’s natural environment provides to society and to our continuing economic prosperity. This is ground-breaking research from over 500 UK scientists and economists, and the UK is the world leader in this regard.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does the Minister foresee a time when natural capital will form part of the national accounts in the same way that other capital assets now do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

We are consulting DCLG colleagues on that and a variety of different issues. I recently visited the Building Research Establishment at Watford. Amazing work is being done there on grey-water systems and how households can use much less water. We want to take those ideas forward, and we will keep the House informed as we do so.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

On the green investment bank, may I point out that the largest manufacturing area outside London is Yorkshire? A quarter of the nation’s energy is produced in Yorkshire. Yorkshire stands ready—manufacturers, councillors, universities—to work with the green investment bank. Will the Minister give us more details of what exactly it will be doing, and what role Yorkshire can play in making sure we take forward the green revolution?

[Richard Benyon]

My experience in this House is that Yorkshire MPs believe that life starts and finishes in Yorkshire, and I am sure the green investment bank will find a way of investing in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and elsewhere. We will come to the House with more details in the near future.

We were talking earlier about whether the concepts of green and growth were complementary or at odds with each other. We firmly believe they are complementary. The environment is an economic issue. Better management of natural resources is a financial and environmental opportunity. That is recognised by the Government and leading businesses. The waste review and the natural environment White Paper underline that by putting resource efficiency and the natural environment at the heart of economic growth.

Broader initiatives either already delivered or in the pipeline include electricity market reform, the renewable heat incentive and the green deal, which is the largest retrofit project. The Government also have an initiative, “Enabling the transition to a green economy”, which is being led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It brings together under one heading all of our ambitions and plans for moving towards a green economy.

To help in that, we have set up the Green Economy Council, chaired by the Secretaries of State for BIS, DEFRA and DECC, which brings together more than 20 business leaders from leading businesses and business groups ranging from Ford to Waitrose. It provides an open forum for business to work with Government to address the challenges of creating the green economy and to facilitate growth opportunities.

I wish to highlight two ways in which we are hard-wiring natural capital across government, and I referred to that in passing earlier. We are working with the Office for National Statistics to include natural capital in the UK environmental accounts. We are also setting up a natural capital committee—an independent advisory committee reporting to the Economic Affairs Committee—to provide expert advice on the state of England’s natural capital. We will be advertising for a chair and members this year.

That develops one of the key objectives put forward by GLOBE International—my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) are such able vice-chairmen for that organisation. We are also establishing a business-led ecosystems market taskforce to review the opportunities for UK business from expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets, which value and protect nature’s services.

I shall now move on to more specific issues. Earlier this year, we published our waste review, which is a comprehensive look at prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal, aiming for a zero-waste economy. It provides a broader picture than recycling targets and sets us on a path towards a greener, more innovative economy that values waste as a resource and an opportunity for jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I shall take up that point, as it illustrates the four aspects that I identified. What we need and what the Government are providing is more courage, which goes to bovine TB, more work with communities, more ability to confront vested interests and more creativity.

On courage with respect to bovine TB, what is the fundamental problem with bovine TB in Cumbria? It is not badgers, as the hon. Lady says. It is that for 13 years the previous Government were not prepared to talk honestly to farmers about the fact that the TB getting into our herds is coming from cattle movement. The answer should come from a better attitude towards movement and linked holdings, and a better attitude towards post-movement testing. Scotland has shown the example. We should have had the courage in areas such as Cumbria, which are still safe and where TB is not endemic, to have effectively moved that border south.

That leads to the second element—working with communities. Again, the solution to the lack of affordable housing in our area, the solution to planning in our area, and the solution to renewable energy, particularly hydro-generation, lies in working much more flexibly with communities. We have just built 22 affordable homes in a rural area by allowing the community of Crosby Ravensworth to do its own planning. We are doing barn conversions up and down the east side of Cumbria by listening to communities who want houses for farmers’ children and have been unable to provide them because of rigid centralised planning regulations.

There has been a failure to confront vested interests—a failure to confront supermarkets over contracts, a failure to confront supermarkets over planning, and sometimes a failure to confront certain elements and lobbies within the farming interests, which connects to the issue of bovine TB. The solution is not only to engage with communities and not only to be more courageous, but to be more creative, which brings us to broadband and mobile telephone coverage.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

There is another problem—the direct and, I suggest, deliberate skewing of Government funding to urban areas in the name of deprivation, and away from rural areas. The average grant per head in rural areas is 50% less than in urban areas at the end of 10 years of Labour, average incomes are lower and the average council tax is 100% higher. People are poorer, they pay more and get less, and that needs to be put right.

[Rory Stewart]

I agree, but to continue to develop the point, it is not simply a matter of cash. The point is creativity. On broadband, the problem with the Cornish project implemented by the previous Government with enormous generosity was its inflexibility—£100 million spent on a region with half the surface area of Cumbria. Were we to try to pursue broadband on that basis, we would spend £42 billion in this country, instead of which, by using communities that are prepared to dig their own trenches and to waive wayleaves, and by pushing commercial providers to innovate in their technical delivery, whether it is cellular delivery, a point-to-point microwave link or a fibre optic cable, means that in Cumbria, with any luck, and touching wood, we should be able to achieve results at least as good as those in Cornwall for about a quarter of the price.

The same is true of mobile coverage. The Ofcom target of 95%, which was set under the previous Government, was not ambitious enough and the costs to rural communities were extreme. By pushing up the coverage obligation, providing £150 million—not a very large amount—for building more masts and, most importantly, confronting the producer interest, meaning the mobile phone companies, which used to be their stock in trade, and compelling them to provide the coverage that they are reluctant to provide outside urban areas, we should now be able to achieve coverage of 98% to 99%.

The economic benefit of all that to rural areas would be immense. There would be a GDP benefit to small businesses and health and education benefits for remote rural areas. All the health, prosperity and vigour that that would bring those communities would allow the delivery of exactly the environmental projects that the Opposition hold so dear. Prosperous and vibrant rural communities will allow farmers, who are often the people in whom we vest responsibility for the environmental projects, to deliver them.

In conclusion, the fundamental mistake in the Opposition’s motion is not their objectives or what they feel ought to be done, but the methods they propose. I am afraid that those methods are dependent on a large deployment of cash, which is what I call the Cornwall approach. Instead, I believe that this Government have brought, as I am proud to see in rural Cumbria, the right focus on communities, the right creativity and the right ability to confront and to show courage, which hopefully means that the next time I look out of my window in my constituency, when I return there tomorrow, I will see affordable housing being built, broadband going into the ground, mobile coverage emerging, healthier cows and a more prosperous farming community that can support all the environmental targets we hold dear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Those are the concerns that a Government who are attempting to be the greenest Government ever should be addressing. Sadly, this Tory Government are out of touch on the environment. The rows over planning, the forest sell-off, a 27% cut in flood defence investment, delays to the water White Paper and a complete lack of ambition on recycling, which the Minister seemed almost proud of, show that the Government are behind the curve on environmental protection and green growth. Their claim to be the greenest Government ever has unravelled in just 18 months. The Tories have a plan for cuts, but no plan for the environment. DEFRA cannot even ban wild animals from circuses, which is not a great deal to ask.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I know that beneath the new Whip’s bluster there is a decent, honourable and reasonable person. One of the most pleasant aspects of the Minister’s speech today was that he did not once seek to describe or excoriate the performance of the previous Labour Government, which he barely talked about. He focused almost entirely on this Government’s policies. I ask the hon. Gentleman to throw away the Labour Whip’s handbook, despite his new job, and to be positive by talking about what can be done, rather than focusing endlessly on this negative stuff.

[Nic Dakin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard. He has added “excoriate” to “prescient” and “canard” in the lexicon that we are being treated to this afternoon, but I fear that he was listening to a different speech from that which I heard.

Twenty-nine leading conservation charities, in their “Nature Check” analysis published this month, have criticised the Government for failing to show leadership on the natural environment. In their fair and balanced conclusion, they say:

“Whilst the Coalition has done well as a champion for the natural environment on the international stage”—

so, ticking the box there—

“at home its commitment to being the ‘greenest Government ever’ is in danger of being undermined. This assessment raises profound questions over the Government’s ability and willingness to deliver its green commitments, let alone to set out a long-term, coherent strategy to reverse biodiversity decline by 2020 and meet the needs of the natural environment alongside economy recovery.”

So, when it comes to delivery, there are serious questions.

Let us look at some key figures, which the RSPB has drawn from recent reports, on the level of the challenge. It states that

“43% of priority habitat and 31% of priority habitats in England are declining; 304 species in England were red-listed in 2007, because of severe decline (more than 50% loss over 25 years) more would be added by an audit today; and less than 37% of SSSIs in England…are in a favourable condition.”

That illustrates the challenge and need with which we are confronted.

Business wants certainty to invest in green jobs and new technology, yet this Tory Government are failing to provide the certainty that industry needs—[Hon. Members: “Coalition.”] I tend to think of the coalition as a Conservative Government. That is what we see all the time when Members go through the Lobbies.

There was much progress under the Labour Government, but there is still much more to make, and that is the challenge for a new Government—to pick the baton up and take the race forward. I am afraid that the Conservatives, however, threaten much of the progress that Labour made on green growth, sustainable development and the environment. They have left a trail of broken green promises. Since the time of the huskies, we have had almost a “For Sale” sign up over many of our natural assets, and support for public access and enjoyment of the countryside has weakened. Things to which people should have a right are challenged and are in danger because of this Government’s position.

Labour created two new national parks, which is great witness of Labour’s commitment. The Tories, on the other hand, have cut funding by 28.5%, meaning that visitor centres will close, parking charges will rise and nature trails will be left unkempt. This is a serious time for the environment, so it is time for the Government to step up to the plate and deliver for it, both in this country and internationally.

Flood and Water Management

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I know Workington and Maryport extremely well, and our hearts go out to those colleagues, particularly in Cumbria, who suffered in the floods. If he will permit me, I will mention the role that farmers, landowners and, in particular, internal drainage boards play in dredging and maintenance. In the visits that I have made over time to areas that have been badly affected by flooding in my constituency, other parts of Yorkshire, Cumbria and elsewhere, I have heard anecdotal evidence of an absence of maintenance and dredging. I was shocked to hear recently that Cod beck, which caused the flooding in Thirsk and where flood defences have still not been built—the Minister might put that on the wish list that he will take away with him today; we are still anxious to get the flood defences built in Thirsk—has not had any maintenance for the past two or three years.

I might go further than my Committee colleagues and our conclusions in the report. I would like the internal drainage board to be allowed to agree a programme of maintenance and dredging with the Environment Agency. On the recommendations, it was the wish of Sir Michael Pitt that there would be an annual maintenance and dredging programme on the Environment Agency website, which the public would be able to see. We have established, however, that the moneys given by internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency, not least in my own region, are not being used for dredging, for a number of reasons. I want that money to stay with the IDBs for a programme agreed with the Environment Agency, but for the IDBs to use their resources and their engineers to maintain main watercourses.

I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, which has contacted me to express its disappointment that no new internal drainage boards have been created yet. I know that the subject is close to the Minister’s heart, so when he sums up, will he tell us the position on the creation of new internal drainage boards? All those bodies have a role to play, but it should not be the Public Bodies Bill that sets out the legislative provisions; they should all form part of the water Bill, which we anticipate keenly.

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

I support that request and wish to reinforce the recommendation in the Committee’s original report. On IDBs, the Government response says that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is

“considering what changes should be made to funding arrangements”.

I hope that that review will happen sooner rather than later. IDBs do a fantastic job from the ground up, with a real understanding of the topography of areas such as Holderness, which I represent. I want local people to be able to hold the money and commission effective flood protection, whether from the Environment Agency or another body. I am convinced, as is my hon. Friend, that putting it in the hands of local people rather than the agency will be more cost-effective.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and for his invitation, which I was able to accept, to visit some of the areas that had been affected in Beverley.

Partnership funding for flood defences, which was introduced only this year, will of course be limited to the amounts that can be raised. The level of funding is the key to the success of our report and the message that we gave, as well as the success of the 2010 Act itself. I have a direct question for the Minister on the business of funding, particularly the levy-raising powers. I and many other hon. Members represent deeply rural constituencies. A concern has been expressed that, where there is not an established local levy, there may be constraints on the amount that can be raised. The Minister must realise that there is a limit to how much any individual local authority can afford because, as we note in the report, budgets have been reduced as a result of the comprehensive spending review.

We welcome the fact that regulations on the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains have proceeded, but the Minister must respond to the concerns expressed in our report, which are reflected across the country, about how we can recover the costs, which are either non-funded or underfunded. It will be helpful if the Minister responds to the water companies’ direct concern about that.

Colleagues would be disappointed if I did not mention sustainable drainage systems. We need to know the commencement date for the relevant provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Are we really looking at a delay until 2012, and if so, do we as parliamentarians accept that? I put it to the Minister that we do not. I do not think it would be appropriate to have a phased introduction of sustainable drainage systems. The country is crying out for sustainable drainage systems to be introduced with a specific target date—I hope, by the end of this year. When will the regulations be laid and what consultation period is required? The time needed for preparation makes those provisions coming into effect this year a very tight timetable, and there is concern that they will be postponed until next year.

I want to place on the record my views on misconnections and the ending of the automatic right to connect. Sir Michael Pitt was extremely clear and categorical on that. I am not sure that we have reached an end to the automatic right to connect. I would like to make water companies statutory consultees on the same basis as the Environment Agency is. Many water companies have loose arrangements with the planning authorities, but it is important that we enshrine that in law. Water companies should be made statutory consultees on any future planning applications to limit potential misconnections as far as possible. I touched on the maintenance of watercourses in response to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), but I repeat that we need as many engineers as possible and that we should use the internal drainage boards where they exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I wonder whether the Committee looked at bringing in national flood protection standards. As soon as flooding moves out of the public eye, and in the face of financial difficulties, funding tends to be cut, with a long-term deleterious impact. Holland has statutory national flood standards, which trigger investment and ensure that standards are maintained. Do we not need some fundamental reworking of protections in law to force Governments and funding bodies to ensure that we have a sustainable system? I fear that if we go for a period without severe floods, we will create the conditions for worse floods in the future.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. Why has there been a delay in the consultation on and implementation of national standards for SUDS? Many have expressed to me their real concern about that. When will the provisions on SUDS be implemented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, who used to be the hon. Member for the Vale of York and is now the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). In 2010, we spent many hours together in Committee scrutinising the Flood and Water Management Bill.

For those of us from Wales, the situation is complex, particularly in the context of devolution. Many hon. Members will remember that there were various sections in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that would be introduced when the then Welsh Assembly Government had had the chance to make the necessary measures in the process of what were then known as legislative competence orders. Since then, Wales has had a referendum and the Welsh Assembly Government have enhanced powers.

I am pleased to say that one of the first measures under those new powers has been the enactment of the adoption of private sewers, which was announced by the Welsh Government Minister John Griffiths and will come into effect on 1 October. We all know how important that is for many householders who, in the past, have often found themselves facing totally unexpected bills because they were unaware that they were on private systems. The adoption of their sewers will be a tremendous bonus for them. Residents in areas such as Cleviston Park in Llangennech, Dolau Fan in Burry Port and Derlin Park in Tycroes will join with many others across the country in being very pleased that they will be brought into the system of adopted sewers and will not have to face bills that people just two streets away do not have to face.

The issue is particularly complex, because the boundaries of the Dwr Cymru Welsh Water area and the Severn Trent area are not coterminous with the border between England and Wales. That presents us with another issue, as there is clearly a need for careful and close working between the Welsh and the UK Governments. Coupled with that, obvious geographical features, such as the Severn estuary, will necessitate continued close working.

On water charges, we are all familiar with the fact that south-west England is in the most difficult position and has the highest charges, but people are not necessarily aware that Wales comes second in all the comparison tables—Welsh Water is the second highest charger. The reasons are complex, are historical and geographical in nature, and go back a long way. Basically, Wales faces problems similar to those in south-west England: it has long coastlines with beautiful beaches, which people from all parts of the UK come to enjoy, and yet there are areas with a relatively sparse population, so it is difficult to make the challenge of meeting environmental standards for those beaches match up with the income that can be generated from the local residents.

I welcome the fact that the Committee has gone into detail in the report on ways forward, but there are no easy options. As the Minister said to the Committee, we cannot end up with a situation in which someone on a very low income in one part of the country subsidises a millionaire in the south-west, and nor is it a straightforward matter of seeing the solution as one for single area or one stretching across several areas. I urge the Government, however, to give the problem of water poverty urgent attention and to take into account the fact that the high prices in Wales are an historical feature and that some discussion is needed about a mechanism that might help consumers in Wales who find themselves in difficulties. For example, some type of national structure, falling under the remit of UK taxation or the responsibilities of the Department for Work and Pensions, would work for a clear-cut case. If it is not so clear-cut, we still need to give the issue special consideration and to think what we can do. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2009 reported that DEFRA should

“examine how changes might be made to the way water industry investment is paid for when it is directly and expressly for the purpose of improving environmental standards for national benefit.”

My constituency is on the northern side of the Burry inlet—the southern side will be more familiar to many people as the Gower peninsula, an area of outstanding natural beauty. Our difficulties in the inlet have resulted in infraction procedures on EU water directives on waste waters, shellfish waters and habitats. The fact that the UK is not in compliance with EU directives is clearly of national significance.

In areas where we have a national responsibility and where we must protect our heritage, we must provide investment to maintain the standards that everyone wants to enjoy on cleaner beaches, with better water quality in our inlets, particularly where we have a precious shellfish industry, as we do in the Burry inlet. We need to ask at what point something should be dealt with on a national scale, rather than on a local water company-area scale. I make an urgent plea for the White Paper to provide a clear indication of how the Government will manage the challenge of providing enough income for the necessary investment in infrastructure at the same time as ensuring that families who find it difficult to pay their water bills do not face even greater bills. The Government must find a way of balancing that extremely difficult sum and, in doing so, take Wales into consideration and work closely with the Welsh Government.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

In posing that conundrum, does the hon. Lady have any sympathy with the idea of solving it by transferring responsibility for flood protection to water companies? After all, they specialise in raising large sums of money from the markets for long-term infrastructure investment to deliver a guaranteed service level, regulated by a regulator, at the lowest possible cost. Could that be a solution—a way of getting all water-bill payers to contribute to a standard of flood protection that would then be guaranteed and could be regulated to ensure that everyone was given protection in the long term and, hopefully, at the lowest cost?

[Nia Griffith]

That suggestion would probably exacerbate some of the difficulties. The historical reasons for the current situation would have to be taken into consideration. Are we suggesting, for example, that flooding in certain areas would be the responsibility of particular water companies, although there is inequality in places where the flooding happens and in the amount of investment that has already been put into flood management systems? I am not sure that the suggestion would work well.

The other difficulty, which I was going to mention, is the whole issue of planning. If water companies are to take responsibility, they must first be given some power. The inclusion of their opinion as statutory consultees is crucial to future planning and development, because they know where overload is and where problems are likely to occur. Sadly, we have seen developments on which the companies have not been consulted, and things have gone wrong. However, the problem with the water companies taking complete responsibility at this point is that they are not responsible for what has happened historically, as there has been an enormous amount of development in many areas that are quite unsuited to it. There could be considerable difficulty with the model proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am trying to understand the objection, which I do not quite get. We recognise that we have haphazard standards at the moment and have had haphazard historic investment bearing no relation to need or risk, and that we want a decent standard for everyone. We need to find a mechanism for delivering that, sharing cost on the most equitable basis that we can, delivering it as quickly as we can while we have a Government who have no money. I do not see that the hon. Lady’s objection is an objection to the proposal. If we could bring it in, if it was politically acceptable, everyone would be brought up to a decent level in a way that spread the burden across bill payers. Is that not desirable?

[Nia Griffith]

The idea would merit further examination, but we need to look at the quite considerable sums that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has put into some flood management schemes in the past few years, and ask ourselves whether, if they were to fall on one particular water company, they would work. We would need to look at that in more detail. At present, I do not have the necessary expertise to go into it, so I shall leave it to the hon. Gentleman to prove his case and produce the statistics to show what he wants to suggest.

Moving on, insurance is immensely important, for everyone in Wales as well as in England. For people who have been affected, who face difficulties and who have suffered repeated occurrences of flooding, we need to ensure that appropriate discussions are held with insurance companies, who should do everything that they can. I urge the Minister, when he introduces the White Paper, to go into that issue in considerable detail. I would be pleased to hear whether he has had any recent discussions on insurance with the insurance companies for people who live in areas that have been repeatedly flooded.

I have mentioned planning. Not only is it imperative that water companies should have a say in planning, because of the types of connections that can sometimes be made and because of their understanding and knowledge of flooding patterns, but it is imperative that local authorities should have due regard for the flood maps produced by the Environment Agency. I am afraid that far too often local authorities such as my own, Carmarthenshire county council, grant planning permission for areas that are in C2 floodplains, when plenty of other land is available. Carmarthenshire is a large rural county, with some small towns and one large industrial town, my town of Llanelli. There is no excuse in that sort of area, even with a large coastline, for going ahead and building where there will clearly be difficulties for the newly moved-in residents.

Nor is there any excuse for building on slopes, which immediately increases the pressure on people living immediately below them. The increased water flow into the sewerage system creates an additional flood risk for those living a bit further down the slope. When making planning decisions, every local authority has a clear responsibility to avoid increasing flood risk. In 200 or 300 years’ time, people will wonder how on earth we could have been so mad as to build in such places when we already had the maps and the knowledge and had found the infrastructure wanting. It is therefore important that local authorities behave responsibly.

On that note, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how far his thinking has got, when we will see a White Paper and what thoughts he has on charging, insurance, flood prevention and flood defences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on initiating it. She chairs the Select Committee with great aplomb, and I know that the matter is exceptionally dear to her heart. I was surprised only that she curtailed her remarks as she did. I expected at least an hour from her.

I look forward most of all in the debate to hearing from the Minister about the progress that has been made since the Government responded to the Committee earlier in the year. The Committee’s report was published last year following a series of welcome and ambitious commitments from the Government: safeguarding clean, reliable and affordable water supplies; protecting households and property from the risk of flooding; and reforming the water industry and making it more resilient, efficient, sustainable, innovative and affordable. The report provided the Government with a comprehensive and holistic approach to delivering on those commitments. Of course we should, in this debate, be assessing the progress that has been made. Instead, I am afraid we must reflect on a number of broken promises and missed opportunities.

A water White Paper was promised for June. In April the Minister revised that commitment and promised that it would be published in the autumn. Unfortunately, the latest business plan of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs now promises publication in December, nine months after the Committee’s report, and we are still no clearer on how the Government plans will encourage the retrofitting of sustainable drainage systems, how they will ensure that customers’ views will be taken into account during the price review process, and how investment in the water industry will be better managed to avoid the boom and bust cycle that so badly harms the supply chain. There is also uncertainty about the future of metering and water efficiency in households, social tariffs to reduce the impact of rising bills on low-income customers and the future of competition in the water industry. Publication in December would leave only four months for the Government to meet their commitment to introduce any new legislation required as a result of the White Paper by next April. I hope that the Government’s ambition will not be scaled back in the fight against a tight time scale.

Since our report, the Government have also severely cut capital funding for flood defences. When we consider that we need to increase investment simply to maintain the current level of protection, that is cause for considerable concern. As the Committee pointed out:

“To cut back significantly on flood defence infrastructure spending could be a classic example of short-term savings leading to much greater long-term costs.”

The Government have also failed to provide any assurance on the provision of flood insurance beyond 2013. The natural environment White Paper, which was excellent in many ways—we adverted to some of it earlier in the debate—also missed a valuable opportunity to set out how, for example, agriculture and land management could play a stronger role in reducing flood risk and improving water quality. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to update us on each of those issues, so that we may leave this afternoon’s debate with a much clearer idea of Government policy on the future of flood and water management. I shall try to deal with each of those issues.

I also want to discuss some of the priorities for the forthcoming White Paper. Ever since privatisation, capital expenditure in the water industry has been concentrated towards the middle of the five-year funding cycle. That has led to financial and managerial inefficiencies in addition to instability in the supply chain, ultimately resulting in higher costs for consumers. It also leads to the migration of skilled resources out of the sector to more stable industries. That has created a severe and worsening skills shortage in the water industry.

The White Paper must help to bring to an end the effect of that five-year asset management planning cycle. It should also explore the link between the price review and innovation. In the current investment period, companies are looking for tried and tested technologies with payback within three years. Some water companies have disbanded their research and development departments as they are not currently funded by the price review. R and D is now conducted on an ad hoc basis rather than in a co-ordinated way.

The water sector faces a period of huge challenge in coping with the implications of climate change, and in reducing its own carbon emissions. It can ill afford to be locked into a short-term investment cycle that stifles and inhibits innovation. The White Paper must set out how the Government will restructure the water industry properly to incentivise and encourage companies to invest in innovation, particularly in treatment processing, energy efficiency, leakage prevention, and water efficiency.

Competition can help to stimulate that innovation. Competition in the water industry is not an end in itself, but it is a means of improving services for customers, particularly the most vulnerable, and improving environmental outcomes.

In the White Paper, the Government gave a commitment to respond to the Cave review, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the White Paper will ensure that greater competition will meet those challenges. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether the Government’s one-in, one-out rule, which prevents a regulation from being introduced unless another is scrapped, will apply to any legislation proposed in the White Paper. If so, perhaps he will share the Department’s thinking on which regulations might be scrapped in the event of any legislation coming forward in April 2012.

We talked much about sustainable drainage systems in another area on which the Government gave a commitment in the White Paper. When sustainable drainage systems are successfully implemented, they can make a significant contribution to reducing the risk of flooding by increasing the capacity of land to absorb water. They can also reduce the risk of water contamination, and increase the sustainability of water use. The provision of SUDS for new developments and, where possible, for existing developments is widely supported throughout the House. However, evidence to the inquiry revealed widespread concern among local authorities about their ability to fund the adoption and maintenance of SUDS. The Government’s response to the Committee stated that DEFRA would fund local authorities for the costs of maintaining adopted SUDS and SUDS maintenance in the “short term.” Will the Minister say how long he expects that “short term” to be? That is important for local authorities.

In November, the Prime Minister said that flood defence spending would be protected, and would be “roughly the same” as under Labour. In fact, capital funding for flood defences to protect homes has fallen from a baseline figure last year of £354 million to £259 million. We now know the meaning of the phrase, “roughly the same”. It means give or take 30% according to my mathematics. In fact, it is a 27% cash cut to the budget, and a 32% real-terms cut when inflation is taken into account.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

After the floods in 2000, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had people from Norfolk and other areas to No. 10 Downing street and made expansive commitments on flood protection. However, the pressures of political life being what they are, flooding moved out of the spotlight and those promises disappeared along with the floodwater. It is an historic happening for Governments slowly to cut long-term infrastructure investment when it is not in the spotlight. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on how to create a long-term sustainable structure which, regardless of the political cycle, ensures that our constituents are properly protected from flooding?

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman points out that at various periods during the previous Labour Administration the flood budget was raided, but he must acknowledge that overall there was both a real-terms and a cash increase in that budget. He is absolutely right that from time to time that budget was raided and cut as necessary in the political cycle, but overall it was increased. The Minister knows that I have the greatest respect for him and the work that he is trying to do in this area, and I know that he understands the importance of the matter. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) talked about small cuts, but this is not a small cut. It is a 27% cash, or a 32% real-terms cut in this period. That is a huge amount.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I was not trying to suggest that he is not being proper in challenging the Government. My point is that historically Governments tend to raid the flood budget when under the pressure that they inevitably suffer. The last Government was much better at spending money than the present one, but it turned out that so much of that money could not be sustained, and we could not afford it. He should not boast about that too much. What we should focus on is how to create a long-term situation so that whoever is in government and whatever the state of public finances our constituents will have a guarantee that that political cycle will not get in the way of sensible, stable support for flood defence in their homes.

[Barry Gardiner]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have talked about introducing minimum standards, and we must move towards consensus, because that is in everyone’s interest.

The Government have given a commitment to deliver 15% efficiency savings in Environment Agency flood defence budgets, but that leaves an overall reduction in those budgets of 17%. I would be grateful if the Minister provided us with an update of his assessment of the impact of that reduced funding settlement in relation to the Government’s flood programme, and the flood defence work that the Environment Agency has programmed for the next three years. Will he also provide an indication of how the 15% of efficiency savings in the Environment Agency has impacted on that work?

Despite those funding reductions, the Committee noted the Government’s commitment fully to fund local authorities in their new roles under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and that they would provide direct grants of up to £36 million a year to lead local flood authorities. That is welcome. Each lead local flood authority would receive at least £110,000 a year, with the authorities tackling the highest levels of local risk receiving up to £750,000 a year. However, the communities and local government special grants settlement for 2011-12 highlights that the most that any lead local flood authority received this year was not £750,000, but £260,000—that was in Kent. Of the 152 lead local flood authorities, 144 received less than £200,000. To allow for local flexibility, those grants are not ring-fenced. On average, central Government funding to councils will fall by 26% over the next four years. I understand the constraint under which the Government are operating.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman’s party created them.

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed, I take on board the party political knockabout that we can have. Local authorities have been put in an extremely difficult position. By not ring-fencing the funds, the Government cannot be sure that they will go into flood defences. It is therefore important to find out from the Minister how the Government plan to review local authority spend on flood management, and how they propose to hold local authorities to account for the money they have been given to spend in that area.

I acknowledge that that is not just a matter for central and local government. The Committee concluded that it was right for beneficiaries such as developers to help fund new flood defence schemes. In light of that, will the Minister confirm how funding through the new flood and coastal resilience partnership funding arrangement will be focused on those communities at greatest risk? How will the Government identify those communities and ensure that their protection is achieved in practice? As discussed earlier, the Government’s draft national planning policy framework should also be amended to address how planning should apportion the costs of providing flood defences for new developments between public agencies and private beneficiaries.

The Labour Government’s statement of principles guaranteed universal flood insurance coverage for homes in affected areas. That guarantee runs out in 2013, and was based on the understanding, following the Pitt review, that Government should have

“above inflation settlements for future spending rounds.”.

We know that that will no longer be the case.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report committed to updating the Committee on progress with implementing

“a roadmap to take us beyond 2013.”

I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to update hon. Members on precisely what the roadmap beyond 2013 might look like.

Water saving through greater efficiency will become increasingly important, especially in parts of the country where climate change and population growth will lead to significant constraints in supply. The Building Regulations 2010 introduced a new minimum water efficiency standard for new homes. The potential consumption of potable water by persons occupying a dwelling should not exceed 125 litres per person per day. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to increase the minimum water efficiency standard in future revisions of the Building Regulations 2010?

As the Committee noted, metering plays a key role in helping to reduce water demand. More widespread introduction of metering will mean that there are winners and losers and some, including groups of vulnerable customers, could see significant rises in their water bills. Social tariffs can help to ameliorate the impact of rising bills on low-income customers. The Government’s response to the Committee stated that they were preparing

“guidance on company social tariffs under Section 44 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.”

Will the Minister confirm when that will be published as it is of great interest and importance to many poorer constituencies? The regulatory framework under which water prices are set must also be reformed to include stronger water efficiency targets for water supply companies. The water White Paper should be clear on how that will be taken forward.

In giving evidence to the Committee, the Environment Agency estimated that costs associated with implementing the water framework directive up to 2027 could be between £30 billion and £100 billion, depending on the approach taken. Despite that level of investment, the UK was likely to see only 26% of rivers achieving “Good Ecological Status” by the water framework directive target date of 2015. The Government’s response to the Committee highlighted that it was possible, within the terms of the directive, to set lower standards of compliance. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to make use of that option? If so, it would be extremely deleterious. Do the Government have any plans to implement the “polluter pays” principle more accurately, so that customers do not have to foot the bill for cleaning up pollution for which they are not responsible? Domestic water customers currently pay some 82% of the costs of implementing measures to meet WFD requirements.

Together with other members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I welcome the focus placed by the Government on flood and water management. They seem, however, to have lost their way over the nine months since the report was published. An ambitious water White Paper and the commencement of provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act that have not yet been effected, must be a priority. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan to move the issue forward.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow speeches that are as excellent and thoughtful as those we have heard so far across the Chamber. I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Committee for the excellent report that has been produced.

On 25 June 2007, this country suffered some of the worst flooding in modern history, and my constituents in Beverley and Holderness were some of the worst affected. All four towns in my constituency, Beverley, Hedon, Withernsea and Hornsea were affected, and at one stage Hornsea was cut off by the floods. Almost every hamlet and village was affected; thousands of my constituents had their homes flooded and were forced out. Although Hull attracted press attention as it too was devastated, the East Riding of Yorkshire was equally appallingly hit.

Although we are discussing the technicalities of the floods, the human cost must never be forgotten. Let us consider from a historical point of view how we, the country and the media would view a catastrophe that saw thousands of people removed from their homes, for months if they were lucky, and years if they were not, and how seriously we would regard such an event if it were caused by something other than floods. In a way, the country and the media failed to recognise just how devastating were the floods in east Yorkshire in 2007 and elsewhere.

The memory of people living with their marriages on the edge as they sat in a tiny caravan—I shall not name the place as that may identify the people involved, but I saw people who were absolutely haunted for months afterwards, with their lives wrecked by the flooding as they sat in a tiny caravan and stepped out into mud. They were involved in permanent disputes over their house with changing underwriters and people from the insurance companies. Notwithstanding the fact that insurance companies in general did a good job, that human picture stays in my mind and makes it important that we get things right.

That is why I am keen to try to find a way of providing long-term solutions. The nature of politics, not least the pressures faced by the coalition Government, given the financial catastrophe that they inherited, mean that funding for long-term issues such as flooding tends to get reduced. It gets reduced even in good times. When the previous Government were spending like there was no tomorrow, after there had been no flood events for a few years, the spending got cut. In a tougher time, we can expect that pressure to be even greater. How do we create a situation with the guarantee of stable, solid and sensible investment to protect people? That is my central question. I have tried to think about the issue, bearing in mind the many people whom I met in my constituency in 2007. The answer I came up with is that what we have now is not suitable. It is not simply about getting new documents, unless that involves legislation and setting down a definitive standard that can be enforced in court. Unless we have something like that, we will see the same cycle again—the money will not be put in place, and when a one-in-50, one-in-75 or one-in-150-year event comes to an area, people will suffer in the same way they did in the area I represent.

As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee makes clear, when all costs are considered, it makes no sense from an economic point of view not to make such an investment. However, because of the silos of departmental budgets and the pressures in the political cycle, that money is not invested and we pay a higher price as a result. We therefore owe it to our constituents, not just from the human point of view, but from a basic, sensible economic management point of view, to create a structure that does not allow the money to be pulled away as soon as the spotlight moves on. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to discuss that today.

I have not done detailed work on what the implications would be of a transfer to water companies. It just seems to me that water companies such as Yorkshire Water, which has plant, people and responsibilities all over my constituency and all over Yorkshire, are capable of raising money from the markets for long-term investment in order to deliver a standard that a regulator ensures is met and to do that in a way that does not impinge on public finances. They are in a better position to deliver that certainty for the lowest possible cost than other models that immediately present themselves. I urge the Minister to think about that, because notwithstanding the good work that went on under the previous Government, albeit that it was a little slow, and the good work that is going on under the present Government which, funnily enough, also seems to be rather slow, I am not convinced that my constituents will not be affected badly again in future.

On the positive front, I would like to praise the Environment Agency. Craig McGarvey, whom I have dealt with a great deal in my local area, has been open. I certainly expressed a lot of criticism of the Environment Agency and the way in which it behaved, the way in which it treated people and the way in which it talked to them, as well as what it did from a practical point of view. However, people from the agency have worked hard to listen to people, to come out and be available. They have given up their evenings to talk and engage with people; and from Pasture terrace and Willow grove in Beverley to Burstwick, Hedon and a number of other places, serious improvements have been made to reduce flood risk.

I pay tribute to East Riding of Yorkshire council, which did not rush to judgment but set up a flood review panel. It spent months doing the work; it thought about it deeply; and it has encouraged parishes to come up with their own emergency plans and to think deeply about how they can minimise risk. Much good work has happened in Beverley and Holderness, and I am delighted that that is the case.

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

I also pay tribute to the fire service. Again, I had been extremely critical. The floods happened on 25 June. Fire officers were doing 12 or 14 hours in floodwater, rescuing people. That happened to be in June. It happened to be the case, when they went in with fire kit on, which was completely unsuitable for flood work, that they did not freeze. If it had happened in February, they would not have been able to stay in the water as they did so heroically, doing 12-hour stints, looking after people. They would have had to come out, possibly after 40 or 45 minutes. People would have died simply because they did not have the kit to go in the water. I was ferocious in my criticism of how we got ourselves in that situation then, and the service listened and has invested and trained up its staff and they have the kit. We can be assured that if such an event happens again, we will have trained firefighters, with the right equipment, who can go in, effect rescues and protect people’s lives. If the floods had happened in February instead of June, people would have died as a result. That will not be the case in future.

Many positive things have occurred. If we do not look at a transfer to the water companies, I would like the Minister to reflect on the situation in the Netherlands, which has larger regional boards as opposed to our internal drainage boards. I visited the country once with the all-party coastal and marine group. People there have tax-raising powers, as I recall, but they have to deliver statutory protection standards. When we visited, we found that their rural areas had a higher guaranteed standard than central London. They looked for one-in-1,250-year flood protection for their rural areas and one-in-10,000-year protection for their urban areas. Of course, they have a completely different history and culture around flooding, given that the whole country is pretty much at risk of flooding and they carved it out of the sea in the first place. However, if we want people to be given proper protection, we perhaps need to implement such flood protection standards. They might need to be different in different places, but people should know that if they build behind a certain line or they have a house there, they will have protection that is maintained over time, whoever provides it. I hope that that will happen.

I know that, as Opposition Members have said, the Minister has spent a lot of time considering and understanding this issue. Across the Chamber, we have enormous confidence in him. We not only hope but expect that he will introduce a long-term settlement that means that the people who suffered so much in 2007 and in years before and after that will not suffer in that way again. That will be because of the Benyon settlement. Whatever the cynicism of people about the motives of those of us who come into public life, we do so in the hope that we can make a significant positive difference that affects the lives of thousands of people for the better. What better monument to the career of my hon. Friend than that he should provide the long-term Benyon settlement on flood protection and prevent the misery that blighted the lives of my constituents in 2007 from happening again in the future where it can be avoided?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is good of you to chair our proceedings, Mrs Main, albeit for only part of our debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and her Committee on the priority that they have given the issue, particularly the matter of flooding. I also congratulate them on their report and on raising it so eloquently here today. There is no doubt that these issues are of importance to hon. Members from all parties.

The Government’s response to the report has been published and I hope that my hon. Friend and her Committee will accept that the Government are taking full account of all its recommendations. As she has acknowledged, the Government are in the process of implementing the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in a proportionate way, having due regard to the need to ensure that the regulatory burden on businesses and citizens is justified. We have already provided much-needed clarity on the roles and responsibilities of regulatory authorities, local authorities and others in flood and water management. We are in the process of developing secondary legislation to address the remaining key elements of the Act: sustainable drainage systems, private sewers and reservoir safety. We will consult widely on our proposals once they have been fully developed.

The Flood and Water Management Act covered all of Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations that required primary legislation, except for producing consolidated floods legislation, which it would not be sensible for us to do in advance of the red tape challenge, where we will seek to repeal any unnecessary legislation. We are aware that other parts of the draft Flood and Water Management Bill were included in the subsequent Act. We are looking again at the need for primary legislation and will only legislate where necessary. Any legislative proposals will be set out in the water White Paper. I say very clearly to hon. Members that we are committed to publishing that White Paper by December—not in December, but by December. If there is any change to that, I will personally notify the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—the Committee Chair—and anyone else concerned. However, that is our commitment today.

The White Paper will focus on increasing the resilience of our water supplies to the pressures of demographic and climate change; on reforming the water industry in the light of those challenges so that it is innovative, efficient and customer-focused; and on ensuring that bills remain affordable. I will come on to address some of the points eloquently raised by a number of hon. Members, not just those in the south-west. We would expect any water Bill to be tightly drafted and to focus on water legislation rather than flood management. The Government are committed to increasing the number of Bills that are published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we will consider the feasibility of doing so in the time available. I hope that my hon. Friend and her Committee will be able to follow that process.

The Government’s new approach to funding flood and coastal defence projects announced back in May, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members, has already scored a number of successes. Instead of meeting the full costs of just a limited number of schemes, a partnership approach will make Government money available to pay for a share of any potential scheme. Cost savings and local contributions will mean that more communities can enjoy the benefits that flood and coastal defences bring. We expect that, in 2012-13, there will be around £20 million-worth of contributions coming in from local and private sources. The new approach is enabling schemes to go ahead across the country that otherwise would not be able to do so, as the outcomes delivered by those schemes were not sufficient to be fully funded by central Government. Through partnership funding, we have opened the door to enable local priorities to be funded, while ensuring that every pound of Government investment is focused on supporting those who need it most, especially those most at risk and living in the most deprived parts of the country. That answers one of the points clearly made by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).

Notable successes include the highly controversial and long-awaited scheme in York and Water End. I hope that that scheme will come to fruition this year. A contribution of £1 million towards the cost from the City of York is, of course, hugely welcome. There is also very good news for Sandwich town, which is an example of how partnership working can bring results. The scheme ran into difficulties as a result of the announced closure of the Pfizer research centre. A significant contribution by Pfizer towards the cost of the flood defence scheme in Sandwich town, along with contributions from Kent county council, has ensured that construction should begin next year.

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members raised the vexed issue of sustainable drainage and sewerage. We recognise the need to encourage and support sustainable drainage. An expanding population, changing climate and urbanisation mean that the drainage infrastructure can come under pressure. That leads to increased flood risk, as there is a fast-flowing conveyance of surface water downstream, with little or none of the slow-moving, filtering characteristics of natural drainage. We intend to consult soon on a package of measures to encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems and to remove the automatic right for developers to connect to the public sewer system. In addition to increased flood risk, the pressure on the sewer system to drain an increasing amount of surface water has a significant negative impact on water quality downstream, for example, through pollution caused by overflowing surface water and combined sewers. We are working to encourage improvements in sewer infrastructure and capability through the transfer of responsibility for private sewers from home owners to water and sewerage companies. I appreciate the point that has been made on that work, which has been 10 years in the waiting. Such an approach will be a massive comfort to many households who face enormous bills.

Before I come on to the more detailed issues that have been raised, I will mention the important matter discussed by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) regarding the impact of floods on agricultural land and concerns about food security. Those concerns, which have been raised in relation to coastal erosion issues and coastal erosion flood risk management, are absolutely at the top of DEFRA’s priorities. I reassure hon. Members that the impact of flood management and coastal erosion on farmland will remain an important consideration. However, food security is principally about availability, affordability and access to nutritious and sustainably produced food, rather than having an absolute foot-by-foot, acre-by-acre, hectare-by-hectare analysis of what could be produced here and there. Although the matter is an absolute priority for DEFRA, domestic production and a healthy rural economy are also important. Concerns will need to be reconciled with the need to protect people and property.

The hon. Member for Copeland asked whether we have a level playing field between urban and rural communities and mentioned the impact on agricultural land. Flood funding is allocated on a case-by-case basis and each case has to stand on its own merits. In the floods of 2007, there were damages worth more than £3.7 billion. Approximately 4% of that was in agriculture. I am not diminishing the impact on agriculture—I am a farmer and I represent a rural constituency, and we want to protect farmland for all the reasons that I have just stated—but we also want to protect people and property. That is a balance that Governments down the ages have had to make and we will not shy away from doing so. However, it is important that we get it right and that we are fair by people and by the properties in which they live. We also recognise the important contribution that farmers make to our rural life, to our economy and to the very important points I made about food security.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

At the moment, the benefit-cost ratio gives a weighting to deprivation. That tends to favour urban over rural, as does the application of population density. Is there really a role for deprivation in the allocation of flood defence funding?

[Richard Benyon]

I think there is, and I will tell my hon. Friend why. I can only speak about this in generalities. My hon. Friend must forgive me if, in doing so, I make it harder for him to apply this, in his mind, across certain communities. We all know that in certain communities, there is a terrific local capacity to take these problems head on. I have communities in which hydrologists live. I have communities that have been flooded where there are water engineers. I have communities flooded where there are people with enormous resources, both financial and intellectual. We have seen communities all around the country with the capacity to put together a partnership funding stream that can work overnight, almost, in terms of flooding schemes. There are other communities where there is not that capacity. That is not to diminish the people who live there at all; they just do not have that capacity. We have to have a system that is mindful that some communities need more help than others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and that relates to the issue of insurance as well. I have been taking forward one measure. Housing associations or council-owned housing stock offer an opt-in scheme on contents insurance. I believe strongly that we should encourage people to do an opt-out scheme. Fifty pence a week can give you £5,000 worth of contents insurance. People would be more likely to have that if it were an opt-out scheme. There is so much that we can do to protect.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Benyon]

I am conscious of the time. I will if it is a very quick intervention, and then I must make some progress.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful. The Minister talked about capacity in areas. Through him, may I congratulate Ron Smith and Burstwick United, who worked through early difficulties to forge a big society partnership with the Environment Agency to protect the village? The Minister has been invited to come and open the scheme. There are farmers storing the pumps. We have others manning the pumps. Will he confirm today that he will come to Burstwick and celebrate that community’s response to the floods in 2007?

[Richard Benyon]

I have developed a habit of agreeing, if any colleague asks me, to go to any part of the country at any time and it causes the people who work in my office palpitations. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that I would very much like to see precisely such schemes where there is flood watch—rather like neighbourhood watch—and where people work together to protect the vulnerable. There are fantastic examples of that around the country. I would be delighted to see that scheme at some stage.

May I quickly address the points that hon. Members have made? The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, made the point, eloquently made by the NFU, that we should not treat farmers as the providers of free storage of floodwater. We take the contribution that landowners and farmers make towards flood schemes very seriously.

My hon. Friend talked about internal drainage boards. Of course, many members of those boards are members of the farming community. They are also members of the local authorities and members of the community and we value bottom-up community engagement. I am a huge admirer of internal drainage boards. They do fantastic work. I had a meeting this week with IDBs from Lincolnshire to understand how they are coping with the extraordinary challenges they have in that area; so much of it is under sea level. The work that they do is enormous. I want to ensure that the Environment Agency works with IDBs to ensure that watercourses are open and flowing, and that everything is at the standard it should be.

I want to see more of what I saw in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). When I went there a few weeks after I started this job, I did something quite by accident—it was organised by my officials. However, it seemed like a good way of doing government. I got into a car with the local MP, representatives of the local authority, the Country Land and Business Association, the NFU, the Environment Agency and Natural England and locked the door. We drove down, looked at certain features and discussed the problems. When I went back there, I discovered that a different attitude prevailed. The Environment Agency had adopted a “yes, if” approach. Now, one telephone call results in action being taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) must work as much as she can with me, and with her neighbours in Suffolk, to try to create a Total Environment scheme, and pool activity—and sometimes pool money—to ensure that we can make a similar attitude prevail in her part of the world. It is really exciting to see it working; it means that we have a responsive system.

I have discussed the issue of SUDS. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton talked about the impact of the natural environment White Paper, the water White Paper and the timing. I can assure her that we have made a very serious pitch to ensure that there is adequate time in the next Session. I very much hope that we will get that, because important measures will come out in the water White Paper that will need a legislative approach.

My hon. Friend, not surprisingly, raised the issue of Pickering and is right to do so. That is an important issue for her and her constituents. I can assure her that we understand the urgency of her constituents’ concerns. We are working extremely closely to make sure that we meet local concerns about the shelving of the scheme, understand the impact of the Reservoirs Act 1975, and discover whether we can find alternatives that are cost-effective and which can be brought forward as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend talked about the problem of over-engineered projects. The Environment Agency’s schemes meet the highest industry standards. They are designed to ensure optimum levels of protection and give an average return on investment of seven to one. There are occasions when we can sit and work out whether we need a Rolls-Royce solution, or whether we can actually make do with a reasonably priced family car solution. I can assure her that we are open to all suggestions and that her concerns are being taken forward.

My hon. Friend made a point about local authorities’ finance for flood and coastal erosion risk management. I can reassure her that the money we have put in has ensured good flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies from the local authorities. All have submitted strategies except one—I will not say which one, but it is not represented by anyone present in the Chamber. We provided the funding, and it is important for the work to be carried forward.

I shall come on to insurance in a minute, but in the five minutes I have left I must also deal with the points made by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) raised the issue of planning and building on floodplains. The Environment Agency—in England, obviously—takes the matter absolutely seriously and gives strict advice on planning applications as they are made, and I will ensure that that continues. The Pitt review is unequivocal on that and we must follow its important recommendations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised the issue of the Severn estuary shoreline management plan. I recognise that that is an area where things were not got right, and we want to ensure that we do get them right. I am working closely with him, other colleagues from that area and the Environment Agency. I had a meeting with them this week and I want to make sure that we share information with local farmers on a consultative basis. We are talking about something not for tomorrow but for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years’ time. We must have a plan in place that is understood and that people are consulted on—I assure him that I will ensure that we do that. He eloquently set out the challenges that face us as we tackle the problems, and we will carry that forward.

The hon. Member for Brent North talked about funding, as did the hon. Member for Copeland. I do not want to enter a sterile debate. They know that, if we compare the previous period of the Labour Administration with the current four years, the reduction is 8%. They also know that massive cuts were announced by the then Chancellor just before the election. We could get into that debate about where we are and where we are going. However, I can assure them and the House that we have fought and protected our budget in a way that was out of all proportion to the spending restraint that we have achieved throughout the Department and the Government. The priority goes right to the top of this Government, and we will ensure that it works. With the efficiencies that we are getting out of the Environment Agency, we will be able to achieve our aims of protecting 145,000 homes, and I remain optimistic that we can do better.

Pig Farming

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Poulter]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I look forward to the Minister covering that that in his concluding remarks.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the need for a level playing field. Pig farmers in my constituency are not asking to be given any artificial support; they are asking to compete on a level basis. They go to other countries and see farmers putting in new sow stalls when they themselves spent hundreds of thousands of pounds per unit replacing their stalls 10 years ago, and they are rightly upset. Does my hon. Friend agree that other countries should not be allowed a derogation in due course? If our farmers have had to make that investment, so should farmers elsewhere and they should not be allowed to import their meat into this country unless they follow the same rules.

[Dr Poulter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes the point very powerfully. The fact is that there is not a level playing field, particularly in the European Union. Stricter EU animal welfare laws for pigs have been agreed, but they will come fully into force only in 2013. As he forcefully argues, we need those standards to be applied in Europe. However, it is not just a question of standards being applied universally; our supermarkets must also show corporate responsibility. If overseas food producers do not produce food to the same high standards of animal welfare and traceability as British farmers, our supermarkets should not buy food from them. We need to see that corporate responsibility from the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, from the rural idyll that is his seat, will be able to answer this question. He said that he wants the Government vigorously to act on food labelling. Why was so little done during the 13 years of the previous Administration, although I know he was here for only a little while during that time?

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I remind him, as I did the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) during a debate on the Sustainable Livestock Bill some months ago, that there are three arable farms at the very top of my constituency. I am hoping to visit them during the Easter recess. Indeed, I have had a good discussion with the National Farmers Union Scotland on a range of issues in the past few weeks.

The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) raises an interesting point. We can bat around what did or did not happen during the past 13 years, but what will certainly be most effective is cross-EU standards in this area. He knows that the food labelling directive is before the European Parliament, and that it may have a Second Reading by early summer. We should focus our efforts and show unity across the House on getting decent standards that will protect the pig industry and other parts of our arable and livestock farming industries.

I want to address the anomaly that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich pointed out—that is, food that is processed in the UK can be labelled as produced in this country. We need reform and clarity across the EU through regulations to deal with that issue.

The third area in which we seek Government action is in respect of a plan for the food industry. The previous Government commissioned the report “Food Matters”, under the auspices of the Cabinet Office, and the study “Food 2030”, under the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but circumstances have moved on. The Foresight report sets out new challenges for better use of water and soil. It also sets the global challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050, but with potentially fewer resources—increasing food production by 50%, but in a sustainable way.

To meet the challenges of sustainable food production, which the pig industry will be involved with, and to show that we can meet our climate change reduction commitments, the Opposition and the NFU call on the Government to adopt a proper plan for food, which should include the pig industry. If there is to be a plan for growth arising from today’s Budget, the UK’s largest manufacturing industry—namely, agriculture—cannot be left out. The plan should contain strong proposals for a groceries code adjudicator with the statutory power to tackle unfairness and inequity wherever they are found throughout food supply chains. As hon. Members have pointed out, such an ironing out and levelling of the market would be enormously beneficial to our pigmeat producers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Bayley. I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon). During his time here, he has been a stalwart supporter of the pig industry, and I am sure that that is not because of his name. His Bill, to which I shall return, is being presented to the House for the fourth time, which shows his determination. I have attended innumerable breakfast and other meetings that he has hosted on the pig industry, and it is fortunate to have someone who is so determined to support it and the pig producers in his constituency.

On one occasion, most of the Suffolk and Norfolk MPs were in the Chamber, which demonstrated not just the importance of the concentration of the pig industry in those two counties—[Interruption.] My colleagues from east Yorkshire also joined us. Those are the main pig producing parts of the UK, and the fact that so many hon. Members decided to attend demonstrates the importance of the pig industry to them, and it reflects the lobbying that has taken place. As a former pig producer in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), I entirely understand its importance.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk rightly said, the industry is vital. He said that its total value is £8.7 billion, which is a significant sum in the retail sector. Others hon. Members have referred to the collapse of the pig herd since the mid-1990s. It is impossible to say precisely how much of that is attributable to the unilateral ban on stalls and tethers that we introduced, but it is obviously a significant part.

One of the changes over 20, 30 or 40 years has been rationalisation into specialist pig units. Years ago, pigs were one unit on a generalised farm, and a rise in grain prices had less impact, because farmers were feeding their own grain to their pigs, so they lost on one side and gained on the other. Now, more and more farmers are specialist pig producers, and must buy all their feed, so they can only lose from rising grain prices.

I shall try to address some of the issues that have arisen during the debate. My hon. Friends will be aware that there has always been pig a cycle. Pigs have a relatively short gestation and growth period, so the rise or fall in supply is a reasonably short-term phenomenon. They were always muck or money as supply and demand fluctuated slightly, but the level of fluctuation has become much worse, and the £20 a pig loss to which several of my hon. Friends referred reveals a dramatic downside of the cycle. It is unfortunate that the cycle was already beginning to drop off when feed prices were hiked up because of the grain price. That exacerbated the problem, but we are there, and the situation is horrendous.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk referred to some of the costs that our producers incur. Stalls and tethers were first phased out in the early 1990s, and were banned completely by 1999. Tethers were banned in the rest of Europe in 2006, and stalls will be banned by 2013, although, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, it will be permissible to keep sows in stalls for up to four weeks after service, and that brings me to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). I assure him that the Government are absolutely opposed to any extension or derogation. As with battery cages for chickens, countries have known for a long time that the change was coming, and farmers have no excuse for not making the transition.

The hon. Gentleman asked me quite rightly about enforcement, and the fact that farmers will be allowed to have stalls on their farm in which to keep sows for four weeks will create a big challenge. Responsibility for enforcement will rest with the competent authority—usually the Department of Agriculture in member states—and I recognise the issue. We must keep pressing the Commission to ensure proper enforcement, because that is a worrying loophole.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have consistently made the case that there should be no derogation after 2013, and whether he has any idea of when the Commission might publish details on enforcement? The earlier we see the proposed enforcement mechanisms, the more we will be able to influence them before they are introduced, when they will be harder to change.

[Mr Paice]

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is that we constantly tell the Commission that when a rule is introduced, every country should comply with it, and that there should be no derogations. He is right in saying that we have not seen any proposals for enforcement, and I am not aware that we have seen any assessment of what stage other countries are at. There were efforts to do that with conventional battery cages, but there were difficulties. The matter is important, and I will chase it up to see whether there has been any assessment of what other countries have done. To be fair, we know that many countries with a significant number of pig farmers, such as Denmark, which is a major pig producing country, have converted, but I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely what the proportions are and how many remain to convert.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East challenged me on whether we would support an intra-EU ban on those countries that have not introduced the measure. I shall be completely honest, as I always try to be. We have not considered that yet, but he makes a valid point. I made the point about eggs, and there is no logical reason why we should not do the same for pigmeat. However, we want everyone to convert, and until we see some sort of assessment, we cannot speculate too much, but I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.

I have just been passed a note saying that no official information is available about how far EU countries have moved towards complying with the directive. Denmark and the Netherlands have said that they will comply, but the situation in some other countries is different and vaguer. There are different rules on castration and tail-docking in different countries, and there is a competitiveness issue. Some hon. Members referred to supermarket specifications and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, claims by Tesco and others about their supply sources. It is reasonable and acceptable, of course, for retailers to ensure that their supply chains comply with British standards, and it is not in the Government’s gift to check whether they do. There is no doubt that tail-docking and castration rules are different in other countries, and it is only right and proper that they should insist on the same standards. I shall return to the supermarket issue.

That leads me to my last point on welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) referred to pigs being kept outdoors. Anyone who drives through Suffolk and South Norfolk will see that tens of thousands of sows are kept outdoors, even through the recent winter and the snow before Christmas. There is no doubt that keeping pigs outdoors is more expensive in production costs. Productivity is lower, there are not so many pigs a year from the sows, and growth rates are slightly affected. Those systems are being adopted because the drive for better welfare from retailers has pushed them that way, but higher management standards are required and farmers do not receive the price for their pigs that that higher standard demands.

I was with a group of Agriculture Ministers in Belgium before Christmas, and we were taken to a modern, highly efficient Belgian pig farm operated in totally enclosed buildings, where the hygiene must have been incredible, as there was no disease. Nevertheless, there were just spartan, bare shelves with a few rubber balls hanging on chains for the pigs to play with. Those pigs compete with our pigs, which are reared outdoors. Apparently, British consumers prefer pigs that have been reared outdoors, but they are not always told about it.

My hon. Friends referred to the overall issue of supply, and to dioxins, which was a problem from Germany that we had in January. The Commission introduced a private purchase scheme for a short space of time, and some pigmeat was taken off the market, which helped for a while. What concerned me was the allegation—I say only that—that certain supermarkets were dropping their British suppliers because the European mainland market was awash with cheap pigmeat as a result of the dioxin scare. To me, that undermines the claims made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk about supermarkets looking after our sector.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Each year, 475,000 cubic metres of timber are felled to supply local wood as fuel and to provide timber-intensive local businesses, such as Egger, which is the largest employer in Hexham. It has more than 400 employees. Kielder is a working forest, unashamed of its clearings and felled areas which, while not always postcard pretty, are replanted to provide a continuous cycle on which much of the employment and way of life and the whole ethos of the area are dependent. It is also the biggest employer in the north Tyne area.

I have worked closely with Northumbria Water, which is responsible for Kielder Water, the largest artificial lake in the UK. It sits at the heart of the forest. The development of these vast resources is already subject to a 25-year investment plan which has outdoor activities and all manner of other aspects of the environment at its heart. I find it hard to believe that that will be undeveloped and not taken forward, with a FTSE 100 company at the heart of the development.

Fundamental to this issue is ongoing access to walkers, cyclists, horse riders and a host of others. I hope that these plans will see an additional £31 million boost to the local economy, and several hundred new jobs in the next 10 years in an area where employment is far from guaranteed. I have genuine concerns that all that will be put at risk. I strongly urge the Minister to look closely at the proposals and to consider the many representations that I have received from my constituents who share my scepticism, and to reflect on the possible effect on this special place at the heart of my constituency.

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

Like my hon. Friend, I have had many constituents expressing concerns about the Government’s plans and the consultation. Does he agree that access and the maintenance of biodiversity are the crucial components, and we should not have dishonest misrepresentation about the proposals? People deserve to be dealt with honestly. I do not mind opportunism, but I cannot stand dishonesty—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have heard quite enough. We need very short interventions. This debate will otherwise be very disappointing for constituents who are affected by the issue that we are discussing. Hon. Members should know better.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

As I have said, we need to recognise that these forests have been preserved for us by staff who have worked for us for generations over the last century. In my view, failure to discuss the staff undermines the Government’s duty of care to those people who have served us so well.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? Other Members wish to speak.

The consultation document contains only one paragraph that deals with staff. It states that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply to the transfer of any of them. However, as we know from other privatisations and sell-offs, TUPE does not prevent a new employer from laying off staff in due course. It does not protect pay and terms and conditions in the long term.

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John McDonnell]

No, I will not.

TUPE does not even protect pensions. There is nothing to prevent a new employer from laying off staff while also undermining their conditions and pensions. I urge the Government to address the issue of their future. When I looked at the impact assessment to see whether there was any reference to it, I found that the only reference in the first seven pages related to redundancy costs. It reads as follows:

“Transition costs of redundancy, TUPE and possible further professional fees have not been quantified.”

That is repeated six times. It appears on each of the first seven pages of the document.

There are real anxieties among this group of expert staff about their future. There are anxieties about a transfer to the voluntary sector. Most Members have been involved with charities—most of us have served on their boards—and we know how difficult it is to maintain a charity. In any charitable or voluntary organisation, about 30% of the time is spent on trying to find funds for future years.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Huhne]

I agree that the committee has an extremely important role to play. However, the hon. Lady must be aware of the financial legacy that this Government have inherited from the Labour Government. We have inherited the largest budget deficit in Europe bar none. It is even larger than, for example, the budget deficit of Greece, which, as we know, has experienced a substantial loss of market confidence in recent weeks. For precisely that reason, I do not think it would be wise for anyone to suggest that we should continue to seek all possible ways of ensuring that we can live within our means. If the hon. Lady looks at the manifesto on which she stood for election, she will observe that no such commitment was made in that manifesto; and it was not made in ours either.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new post, in which I am sure he will serve with distinction. What are his views on carbon capture and storage? He will recall that in 2003 the last Government stressed the urgent need for action. I have seen no plan to move forward to 2050 that does not include carbon capture and storage if we are to meet our ambitious targets, and yet that Government failed to make any real progress on that when they were in office. The demonstration projects were endlessly delayed. Will my right hon. Friend supply the commitment and drive that were so sorely lacking when the Labour party was in power?

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

It is an honour and a privilege to speak under your presiding eyes, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your new role.

I welcome the Queen’s Speech and the commitments to a green economy, which is essential for the restructuring of our economy, which has been so dependent on the financial services that have failed us so badly. However, I thought I might give the House the benefit of my personal history of engagement in energy issues. I worked as a young research and information officer for the North-East Scotland Development Authority in Aberdeen in the 1970s. At that time, it was struggling to find 16,000 new jobs for the area simply to stabilise the decreasing population. I doubt whether we would have succeeded in that but for the serendipity of the discovery of huge quantities of oil and gas in the North sea.

There was an unseemly scramble to get the oil and gas into production against the background of the first oil crisis and the foundation of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It also coincided with the first miners’ strike and the three-day week. A few weeks after his defeat as Prime Minister in the February 1974 election, Ted Heath came to Aberdeen, and I and others briefed him in our offices about the scale of development activity in oil and gas that was taking place in the North sea. He was duly amazed. I am not sure that he appreciated it when I told him that had he come before the election he might still have been Prime Minister, but it certainly brought home to him that we needed a strategy. The value of coal, as well as of oil and gas, had been dramatically changed by the OPEC crisis.

People may remember that at that time there was lively discussion about the need to reduce the industrialised world’s dependency on oil and gas, while trying to maximise production from our own resources, where they had been discovered. I wrote pamphlets on the subject with Ross Finnie, who distinguished himself for eight years as the Environment Minister in the Scottish Administration. We called for a drive for greater energy efficiency and for policies to develop alternative technologies using smaller-scale generation, moving away from dependency on fossil fuels. Somehow, as the oil price fell and the crisis diminished, all those high ideals fell away, and I find it extraordinary that 35 years later we are still talking about how we might implement them to any significant degree.

As someone who had, and has, no visceral objection to nuclear power, I became increasingly aware that far from being the cheap option that we were promised, nuclear power was economically unaffordable and we had been lied to big time by the industry. However, the problem of trying to develop alternatives was made much worse by the fact that the Atomic Energy Agency was put in charge of supporting and evaluating alternative renewable energy. I might say to the shadow Secretary of State that that too was like putting a vegan in charge of McDonald’s, because the result—predictably—was that if anything looked as if it might become remotely commercially viable, the plug was pulled on further development. So, although Britain developed the first large-scale wind turbines, in shipyards on the Clyde, we had no policy for deployment. It was therefore left to the Danes, who did have a policy for deployment, to become world leaders in that technology. I do not know if Salter’s ducks would ever have generated electricity commercially from marine sources, but I know that the technology was never allowed to prove that it could, because the AEA was determined to ensure that there was no alternative. I wonder whether we are being subjected to the same propaganda today.

At the time it was also argued that we needed large generation stations to power the national grid and, given its format, we probably did. But even then it was clear to me that we should be thinking of moving to smaller-scale generation. Over the years, high-energy manufacturing—of which we have less in any case—has increasingly provided its own power generation as an integral part of its operation, requiring only top-up flows in and out of the national grid. So when I was first elected to this House in 1983 I joined what was then known as PARLIGAES, the parliamentary group for alternative energy studies, and I am currently a vice- chair of its successor, PRASEG or the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energies group. They are not very snappy acronyms, but they are important all-party groups.

All of this predated any inkling of the threat of climate change. It was about reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and finding cleaner, more diversified and more sustainable ways to generate energy. We have wasted at least 30 years getting to this point. As a young researcher in 1972, I compiled the first directory of oil and gas operators and supply companies in north-east Scotland, which included an estimate of the number of people employed and a forward job projection. Interestingly, at the time there were several dozen companies employing a few hundred people. I projected that the number could rise to as many as 5,000, with the same number of jobs indirectly generated, and I was accused of gross exaggeration. Today, the Gordon constituency sustains more than 65,000 oil and gas-related jobs. They are not all based in the constituency, but they are payrolled out of it, and the industry employs an estimated 450,000 people across the UK.

As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I was very pleased that last week, in his first week in office, he visited the All-Energy exhibition in Aberdeen, covering companies engaged in all aspects of renewable energy technology. He saw for himself the impressive emerging technology for offshore and marine renewable energy, and the useful overlap between the technology and systems required by oil and gas and those required by renewables in an offshore environment. Installing a platform, sub-sea connectors, pipes or cabling requires the same equipment and engineering expertise, and there can be a crossover. The important point is that if we can run the second generation of North sea development—which probably has as much oil and gas again to be extracted, although in much more challenging conditions—alongside an expanding offshore renewable industry, we could benefit from huge economies of scale and efficiency by using the same equipment.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a powerful speech. Not only do we have renewable energy and oil and gas, but carbon capture and storage. We have the skill sets and the ability to store carbon, and I hope that the failings of the previous Government will not mean that we lose the opportunity to be a world leader in that area, because it could produce jobs and wealth if we can sell that technology instead of having to buy it from others.

[Malcolm Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. As I have said, we missed the boat 35 years ago, and we must not do so again. There is a real risk that that might happen, if we do not get the policies right.

[Malcolm Bruce]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

I hope that the Secretary of State took away several points from the exhibition. Exciting as the development of renewables is, it will not replace oil and gas soon in investment, jobs, tax revenue or exports. That will take some years—but if we run them in tandem, we can build one up as the other declines. Renewable technology will require a number of push-and-pull measures to realise its full potential. For both of them, we require substantial onshore investment in ports and transport infrastructure. As a representative of part of the city of Aberdeen, I am concerned that our infrastructure is not appropriate for a city that claims to be the energy capital of Europe. Our promised bypass has not happened, our commuter rail service has been postponed indefinitely, our city finances are in a considerable mess and we have the two most underfunded councils in Scotland, with money being diverted to other parts of the country. In those circumstances, my message to the Secretary of State—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—is that it is the UK Government who stand to lose if that infrastructure is not right, because some of the investment will go out of the UK altogether.

I welcome several of the proposals in the Queen’s Speech to promote marine energy and to support home energy efficiency, which can help move us away from dependency on the national grid and huge power stations, and make microgeneration genuinely part of the national grid, rather than just a domestic alternative to current generation. As I keep asking at every event I attend, when will we get micro combined heat and power? What steps will be taken to provide an easy way for people to take up feed-in tariffs? I defer to the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about renewable heat, which is part and parcel of that issue. What can be done to help people with hard-to-heat homes—a question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? We have many such in Aberdeen, and they are expensive and difficult to tackle.

I would like to address the international dimension. I am a vice-chairman of GLOBE UK and GLOBE International, which played an invaluable role in testing potential policies and negotiating positions in the run -up to the various climate change summits. In fact, in advance of Copenhagen, GLOBE clearly identified China’s concerns, through the climate change dialogue that we run.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

indicated assent.

[Malcolm Bruce]

My hon. Friend acknowledges that point.

Unfortunately, had they been properly addressed, we might have mitigated the fallout in Copenhagen. GLOBE gave the UK Government the opportunity to ensure that what happened would not happen, and to see that Europe played a part in the process rather than being marginalised, so GLOBE has an important role to play.

It is unreasonable for developed countries to tell developing economies that they cannot enjoy the same development opportunities that we did—development that led to the climate danger. It is also realistic to recognise that China will not give up its commitment to double-digit growth, which after all has helped 400 million people out of poverty, although hundreds of millions are still left behind. It is also right to acknowledge, however, that China knows the damage that pollution and climate change are causing for its people and environment, and wants all the help it can get to grow sustainably. That is why I and the International Development Committee, which I previously chaired, do not want an abrupt end to the UK’s aid programme for China. It is on the climate change front that we can work together most constructively. We have to give China space, share technology and innovation and recognise that many of the poorest countries are the victims of climate change, not the perpetrators. As the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has already acknowledged, China may well get ahead of us if we do not participate in initiatives with it, so it is in our interests to partner it as much possible.

Poorer and developing countries must be helped to adapt and mitigate the impact of climate change, be given the means to grow sustainably and not find the anti-poverty aid hijacked to fund climate change measures. The previous Government put in place a 10% limit on money being diverted in that way, and I hope—I will hold them to account—that the current Government will not weaken that commitment. Britain can lead the world on climate change policy, and in many ways, despite the criticisms that have gone back and forth across the House, it is fair to say that we have made significant progress, although it has been more about ambitions than delivery, so we now have to deliver.

Only if our targets are turned into policies for practical action can we demonstrate by our results and developing technology what we can offer the world. I would suggest—if I can put it constructively—that we should build on the initiatives of the previous Government and recognise that we can take them forward. If we do that, we will deliver credibility and prestige abroad, and jobs and exports for our domestic economy, and it will give us a new dynamic sector to take up the slack left by the abuses that damaged so much of the financial services sector, which I suspect will never make as big a contribution again. The lesson is quite simple: we can help save the world from climate change disaster, but only if we first save ourselves.