Plastic Bags

Joan Walley Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to have secured this debate. We have just had a wide-ranging debate on environmental issues, and on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee I propose to address in much more detail the specific issue of plastic bags, which are equally important. I thank the Liaison Committee for making it possible for us to debate our report this afternoon. I am aware that Thursday afternoons are commonly known in parliamentary circles as the graveyard slot, because so many people go back to their constituencies. None the less, there has been interest in our report and, indeed, there have been numerous responses to the Government’s consultation. As the regulations are being introduced in October 2015, it is important that we have this small amount of time in Parliament to question the Minister on what progress the Government are making and where we are. I am grateful to the Minister for being here, and I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the shadow Minister, who will no doubt address some of the relevant issues.

[Annette Brooke in the Chair]

There is no single solution to all the environmental challenges that we face. If we consider all of the Environmental Audit Committee’s reports, not only on plastic bags but on the green economy, the circular economy and the sustainable development goals, we clearly need to be taking forward steps on plastic bags just as much as on anything else. If we cannot get it right on plastic bags, how can we, the Government or anyone concerned about the issue get the much bigger things right? It is all about consistency. I accept that banning plastic bags altogether would be a much more radical proposal, but we are not talking about that—it has only been proposed in Italy. We are talking about regulating plastic bags so that we move further along the route towards decarbonisation and addressing environmental degradation. It is therefore critical that we get every single aspect of the regulation right.

The nub of our recommendations on plastic bags is that, if the Government are to introduce a scheme, it must be simple, easily understood and consistent. Unless the scheme ticks all those boxes, there will be complete confusion about its purpose and operation. Section 77 of and schedule 6 to the Climate Change Act 2008 allow us to introduce further regulations on plastic bags, and those regulations need to be approved by the House because the Act did not set out how the proceeds from the sale of carrier bags would be addressed. We therefore need further regulation. That technicality means that we now have this opportunity to make a proposal that is fit for purpose.

The question, therefore, is: why has it taken us so long to get it right? We have had from back in 2008 to October 2015. I am the first to say that it is not only this Government who got it wrong; the previous Government got it wrong, too, because they could also have introduced a measure to do something about plastic bags. There is a question of whether the public are behind the measure and whether there is courage to take these issues forward, but I think that has been addressed because in Scotland, Wales and other parts of the UK we have seen that, where the devolved Administrations have made proposals, they have largely been welcomed once people became used to them. Everyone wants to do their bit for the environment, and such proposals are a means of doing that.

We have concerns about the Government’s proposals and consultation. Our main concerns relate to paper bags, small retailers and biodegradable bags. We took extensive evidence from a wide range of experts and stakeholders. I am also aware that a long list of people responded to the Government’s consultation, including Tidy Britain, Surfers Against Sewage and various other groups. No regard has been given either to the consultations or to the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee, which is here on behalf of Parliament to scrutinise what the Government are doing. I hope the Minister will give us chapter and verse, which has been lacking so far, on the Government’s response to the consultation and the reasoning behind that response.

We suggest that there should be no exemptions and that there should just be a single straightforward scheme. Why complicate it? Why are the Minister and his Government complicating it so much? Many of the trade bodies representing small retailers actually oppose the proposed exemption for retailers with fewer than 250 employees. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Association of Convenience Stores and the British Retail Consortium all criticised the exemption in their evidence to the inquiry. They said that the exemption will distort competition and cause confusion for businesses and consumers. All three bodies said that their members would like to participate. We need to know why the Minister is ignoring what those groups said.

I understand that the Government do not want more red tape or to make everything difficult, but I have had further conversations with one of those groups, in which it has made the point that more changes are likely to be coming in as a result of what is currently happening in Europe. Why should its members have to get used to one set of changes when there will perhaps be another set later on? How are the general public going to understand why there are exemptions for smaller businesses? Why can we not simply have a level playing field, with measures that are understood by everyone from day one? Will the Minister tell me why we cannot do that?

The Government have put forward exemptions for paper bags, but as our report points out, paper bags can have a greater emissions impact than plastic bags. Exempting paper bags from the charge would weaken the message on bag reuse and risks reducing environmental benefits and reductions in bag use. The Government should include paper bags in the charge.

We have seen similar things happen on all kinds of environmental issues. One comparison is the situation with air quality and diesel engines. It is laudable to be doing everything we can to cut carbon emissions, but if those efforts at the same time have a reverse effect on environmental quality and standards, we need somehow to co-ordinate efforts in the two areas. Paper bags use more carbon, so what rigorous appraisal have the Government used to come up with the proposal to exempt paper bags? How is that proposal consistent with their long-term climate change and carbon reduction targets under the Climate Change Act? It is incumbent upon the Government to show how every single element of their environmental policy contributes to their overall long-term objectives. They must demonstrate that there will not be contradictory, unintended consequences as a result of the exemption for paper bags.

Our third area of concern was oxo-biodegradable bags. Recyclers who gave evidence to the Committee were concerned that increasing the use of biodegradable—perhaps we should put that word in inverted commas—plastics would threaten the viability of the UK recycling industry by contaminating waste streams and recycled products. During the inquiry, concerns were also raised that biodegradable bags would still cause litter and harm wildlife, because of the time it takes discarded bags to decay.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this debate, which is on an issue that is important to many people. I do not think that the small number of Members here today accurately reflects the significance of the issue.

When the hon. Lady was taking evidence during her inquiry, did she receive evidence not only from Surfers Against Sewage, a group based in my constituency, but from the European Centre for Environment and Human Health, which again is based in my constituency? That centre has gathered a huge amount of scientific work and evidence that shows that biodegradable plastic bags do not degrade naturally in the environment, but need specific circumstances in order to biodegrade. Anyone who has done a beach clean—I have, many times, along the Cornish coast—will be only too away that the plastic does not biodegrade and we all have to collect it.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she may make a speech.

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). I pay tribute to the work of Surfers Against Sewage. I know from my 28 years in this House just how many campaigns that group has been involved in, very actively, on environmental degradation and the importance of keeping our marine areas and coastal waters clean. The group attaches importance and value to wildlife and has looked at the long-term problems that are caused by the throwaway society that we now seem to have, in which litter ends up everywhere.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s welcome intervention, I can say that we received evidence from Surfers Against Sewage, an organisation that believes in making its point on each and every occasion. Its view is that our greatest chance of success in reducing the amount of bags that are littering our blue and green open spaces, through reducing the number of single-use bags given out at checkouts and ensuring consistency across retailers and along the high street, means we must remove the exemption in the English bag-charge scheme for paper and oxo-biodegradable plastic bags—that is what the group is calling for, and it believes those measures have to be brought forward. That is so obvious to Surfers Against Sewage that I come back to asking this: why is it not so obvious to the Government that we should not allow those particular exemptions? They will create so much uncertainty and lack of understanding.

At a time when politicians are not really trusted by the electorate in the way that we would like to be, the exemptions will undermine trust in the scheme. I do not know whether Surfers Against Sewage made the same points to the devolved Administrations, but if it did, it was listened to better. I hope it is not too late for the representations that are being made to be picked up by the Government—after all, they have not lost any opportunities to say that they intend to be the greenest Government ever. We will judge that by actions, not words.

The Government have failed on all three of those issues: on paper bags, for the reasons I have outlined; on small retailers, because people need to know clearly what is being done; and on the issue of biodegradable bags, as well. While we are on that last subject, it is all very well to talk about biodegradable bags, but according to the evidence we received they are apparently not biodegradable, or at least not yet. The question that then arises is: how can the Government set an exemption for something that is not yet there?

The Government have said—I think Lord de Mauley, the Environment Minister in the other place, made this point—that there will be opportunities for research to establish where the innovation on biodegradable bags will come from. I have to say that there are some questions for the Government on this matter. When it was discussed in the European Parliament, questions were raised by a Danish MEP about whether there had been full transparency about the company wishing to put forward proposals for a type of biodegradable bag that has not yet been confirmed as biodegradable, on which research is still required and for which the Government have yet to set any determining criteria. We have an exemption for something that does not yet exist and will come in at a later stage. That raises all kinds of questions about how fit for purpose the Government’s proposals on plastic bags actually are. They seem to be nonsense.

That would not matter so much if it were not so important that we make progress on the environmental agenda. I was really disturbed to see the Department’s figures on recycling earlier this week, and gave a local radio interview in my constituency this morning about the real cut in the number of items that are being recycled. Looking at the figures, that reduction in recycling is happening not just in Stoke-on-Trent but in London and in areas all over the country. We are a long way from the target of 50% of goods being recyclable by 2020. Instead of reaching a plateau and allowing efforts to flatten out, we should be acting with even greater urgency to get the different schemes that are coming forward absolutely right. As I say, that is not the case with the way we are dealing with paper bags.

WRAP has told us that the number of single-use plastic bags handed out to shoppers by UK supermarkets is not going down; in fact, it has risen for the fourth year running. In England, the number of thin plastic bags used increased by 5% last year, representing an 18% increase since 2010. In contrast, Northern Ireland introduced a charge a quarter of the way through the reporting period, and the number of bags used dropped by 71%. That is a huge difference, and we should be following suit—perhaps we will do so a little more following today’s statement in the House about devolution and where it is taking us.

Bag litter is also rising. When even the Daily Mail is starting to campaign on the issue, we realise just how important it is to people across the country and why getting the scheme right is so important.

I would like the Minister to respond on a couple of issues. We would like to glean from him what has actually been going on in the European negotiations. It would really help people to understand the issue better if they knew the Government’s position in those negotiations. I understand from press reports that a watered-down version of the regulations is likely to come forward, but I would like to hear that directly from the Minister. What was the UK Government’s line? Were we trying to water down the regulations?

The Minister has to tell us why the Government have not taken on board the feedback they have received from so many consultations and as part of the Committee’s report.

I would like the Minister to say a little about the timetable. The Government say they will lay the necessary regulations under the affirmative procedure by the end of the year so that they will be enforced by October 2015. Can we have the dates for the regulations? Are they on track? Have there been further consultations with key stakeholders? When will we see a copy of the proposed regulations? Is there any possibility of the Committee’s recommendations being taken on board as a result of this debate? It is not too late for the Government to change their stance.

Related to that is the issue of behaviour change, which I touched on earlier. How are the Government seeking to use their proposed measure to support other pro-environmental behaviours? What are they doing to ensure consistency in messaging and outcomes? There is also an issue about the money going to charity. Will the work of the charities involved be related to the environment in some way?

What are the Government doing to ensure companies do not use the threat of a new stick to remove existing carrots, if I can put it that way? Sainsbury recently decided to stop giving people Nectar points for reusing plastic bags, but that was an incentive for them to do so. Have the Government met major retailers to see whether they are consistently going forwards, even on the current voluntary basis? How can the Government ensure that charges for bags result in fewer bags being littered?

There is also the issue of learning from other countries. How are we helping companies to prepare, based on what has worked well in other countries? How can we pre-empt the risks that might arise? How has the issue been addressed in Ireland, Wales and, more recently, in Scotland?

This issue is really about the UK Government’s commitment to supporting reductions in the number of plastic bags and about transparency. At the heart of all this—we have seen this with pesticides and so on—is the question of what importance the Government attach to the precautionary principle. That principle should be at the heart of the specific actions we take on plastic bags, but I do not see that it is. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on those issues when he winds up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister pleads in his own defence, and I will let the industry judge for itself, but the industry has been clear that it was deeply unhelpful of the Department to announce that the Government no longer saw fit to take part in some aspects of waste management and that it was down to the industry just to get on with things.

The rationale behind the Government’s position was that they should not intervene in areas where there was no market failure. The problem, however, is that I happen to believe that 2,309 items of plastic per kilometre on UK beaches constitute market failure. The remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the levels of plastic litter experienced around the UK coastline bear witness to that. They are disgusting, but they are also a warning about the level of plastic that has not washed up on our beaches and that is still floating out at sea. The Government have just not thought through waste management in this respect. If they had, they would have listened to the industry and delivered a workable policy programme. They have not done that.

What percentage reduction in plastic bag use do the Government expect will be achieved as a result of their policy by 2020? Will it be as much as in Wales, where there is a simple charging system without all the loopholes and caveats the Government have added?

When does the Minister think that a biodegradable plastic bag will fulfil the criteria for exemption from the single-use plastic bag charging policy? My hon. Friend made an incontrovertible and admirable point: where else in Government policy does one create in law an exemption for something that does not exist? It really beggars belief.

The Committee’s report stated:

“The policy around the exemption for biodegradable bags appears rushed and taken before reviewing existing evidence or considering the concerns of all stakeholders.”

If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend’s Committee let the Government off lightly by putting it so delicately.

The report continues:

“It appears to us that Defra is trying to use innovation to justify a rushed and flawed policy proposal to allow an exemption for biodegradable bags.”

The question we must ask is why. Can the Minister give a reasoned explanation— because there is certainly not one in the Government’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report—of why the Department has gone into such contortions to do that? The waste management industry and environmental scientists are clear about the fact that the exemption is absurd. The British Plastics Federation has made it clear that DEFRA made the decision on the exemption before consulting manufacturers. British Polythene Industries opposed the exemption and stated that it would increase the use of plastic bags and undermine recycling targets. What progress has been made as part of the small business research initiative on biodegradable bags?

Objections to the policy on environmental grounds have been as emphatic as the industry’s. A professor of marine biology and adviser to DEFRA told the Environmental Audit Committee that he was surprised by the proposals to exempt biodegradable bags. His research found that approximately 98% of plastics, including so-called biodegradable plastics, remained after 40 weeks, in part because of a lack of light reaching the bags under water. There is no such thing as a biodegradable plastic bag; the plastic just degrades into smaller pieces that are more easily ingested by marine life. That means that they are more easily able to contaminate and pollute the marine environment.

Quantities of litter on UK beaches have more than doubled since 1994, according to the Marine Conservation Society’s Beachwatch survey, which is the source for the figure of 2,309 items per kilometre found in 2013. Last year English beaches had, on average, 45 plastic bags per kilometre, an increase of just over 20% since 1996. Let us consider the impact of that on wildlife. The northern fulmar does not regurgitate plastic, but accumulates it in its stomach. Data collected between 2007 and 2011 show that 95% of fulmars in the North sea had plastic in their stomach—62% exceeding legal limits.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s report states:

“Several key impacts of the policy (e.g. reduced disamenity impact of litter; reduced damage to marine life) are difficult to measure in quantitative and monetary terms.”

Indeed they are, but that does not mean they are not real. They are what classical economics regards as externalities, and, as so often with the present Government, externalities are ascribed a nil value. That is the problem. The Government have chosen to discount the importance of litter and, significantly, of damage to marine life, because it is too difficult to work out what those things cost. That is the wrong approach. Litter ruins neighbourhoods; plastic waste damages entire marine ecosystems.

The waste management industry, perhaps more than any other, can produce growth that increases the productivity of our economy and creates new, skilled jobs. The job creation rate for recycling and reprocessing is significantly higher than that for landfill. It has been estimated that one job in landfill is created for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. By contrast, SITA estimates that job creation per 1,000 tonnes of waste for recycling ranges from 0.75 to as many as 40 jobs, depending on the material. That is between 38 and 2,000 jobs for every 50,000 tonnes of waste. That is the industry on its own, making an immensely valuable contribution to jobs and growth; but it is even more important as a driver of the wider economy.

[Joan Walley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is widespread concern that the Government are stepping back from supporting the waste management sector, and offering only a limited programme of waste prevention activities? There are opportunities for innovation and growth in jobs, but the sector is not being supported by the Government to the extent it should be.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am happy that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because, as on most such occasions, she is right. She will have heard the Minister giving his justification for the Government’s approach to the waste management industry and the issue of the circular economy. The point that she and I are trying to make is that the opportunities are huge; and so are the risks of inaction. The Committee warns in paragraph 68 of its report:

“The Government’s waste management strategy needs to be clear, consistent and easy to understand in order to secure reduced carbon emissions, improved rates of recycling and avoid contamination of waste disposal streams. Gains in other areas could be far more important than can be generated by bags alone.”

Again, it is a question of an integrated approach to and coherent policy on waste management. The Committee was right to highlight that; the Government should not have a stand-alone policy on plastic bags. The policy is, frankly, an unscientific mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has pointed out that no genuinely biodegradable plastic bag exists. Paragraph 33 of the Government’s response to the report states that they are

“aware of the concerns regarding contamination of the recycling stream with biodegradable plastics and are addressing this with feasibility studies”.

I should be grateful if the Minister would update us about the progress of those feasibility studies.

In places the Government’s response is incoherent. Paragraph 24 states that

“the Government intends to require retailers to publicise the number of bags sold and how the proceeds of the charge have been spent.”

That is from a Government who are anti-regulation; but three paragraphs on, paragraph 27 states:

“Requiring businesses to report specifically on the VAT on plastic bags would also introduce additional administrative burden for those firms involved.”

Goodness me; within three paragraphs the Government contradict themselves on whether regulation on plastic bags is appropriate or burdensome for business. The policy is incoherent, and an incoherent response has been given to a coherent report.

It is alarming that the policy has been allowed to get so far when Government officials and advisers express serious concerns about the impact on the marine environment, in particular. If the Government do not abandon the absurd parts of this policy and adopt the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation for a simple universal charge that will reduce plastic waste and litter as part of a wider, comprehensive and coherent waste-management strategy, I assure the House that the next Labour Government will. It is an essential component of a resource management strategy worthy of the name.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Brooke.

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for the opportunity to debate plastic bags. Owing to my ministerial position, I get to be a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, although I am sure as its Chair, the hon. Lady would take me to task on my attendance record sitting on her side of the table. It is a convention that one does not attend in that way, but I have appeared before the Committee on several occasions and look forward to doing so in the near future—next week—on another topic. I appreciate the work it does.

Before I delve into aspects of the policy raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I noted that the hon. Lady’s speech was somewhat negative. To be fair, she was negative about the previous Government as well as the current one. We are introducing a policy that takes advantage of the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008. She and the hon. Member for Brent North, who is sometimes my hon. Friend, may take issue with some aspects of the policy, and I will address their concerns in a few moments. The fundamental point is that we are seeking to enact those provisions and to do something about the matter. I hope the hon. Lady and the Committee welcome that.

[Joan Walley]

Does the Minister agree that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing right?

[Dan Rogerson]

Absolutely, and we can debate the provisions and aspects that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have highlighted.

The Government carefully studied the Committee’s report on plastic bags earlier in the year—the hon. Gentleman referred to our response. We may disagree on details of the scheme, but we agree that reducing plastic bag use has environmental benefits. It will mean lower carbon emissions, more efficient use of valuable resources and less litter. Too many single-use bags are currently being distributed. Efforts to reduce the number of such bags without resorting to legislation have led to success in the past, and voluntary initiatives by retailers saw a reduction in their distribution by 48% between 2006 and 2009. That was significant progress, but the number of single-use plastic bags is on the rise. In England between 2010 and 2013, there was an increase of 18%, or just over 1 billion bags. In 2013 alone, England’s main supermarket chains issued more than 7 billion single-use carrier bags to their customers. Laid out, those bags would go round the M25 more than 20,000 times. Such statistics are staggering.

As we know, far too many bags make their way on to the streets and into the countryside as unsightly litter. They are also discarded on beaches, as hon. Members have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) highlighted the work of organisations such as the Marine Conservation Society in monitoring and reporting on that, and in conducting beach cleaning. I was out beach cleaning a few weeks ago, as I am sure many hon. Members were—[Interruption.] Perhaps those with slightly less coastal constituencies were not engaged in that but they are welcome to come to Cornwall to see such important action first hand.

The hon. Gentleman set out the impact in the sea and to the environment where plastic bags can cause harm to wildlife. Plastic bags also have a negative impact on the environment through their production and disposal. The oil used in their creation and the tonnes of plastic that go to landfill means we must take action to reduce the use of plastic bags. When they are used, they should be reused as often as possible and then recycled.

The Government will shortly lay draft legislation in Parliament to introduce a requirement to charge for single-use plastic bags. There has been a largely positive response to the announcement of the charge. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North referred to some corners of the media that have been particularly keen to support the policy. It is a proven tool. In its first year, the Welsh charge resulted in a decrease of 76% in the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by the seven big supermarkets. We have been able to use the experience from the Welsh charge to help to shape our scheme. A similar charge was introduced in Scotland in October, as the hon. Lady said.

Subject to parliamentary approval, the English charge will commence in October 2015. It will require retailers to charge a minimum of 5p for every new single-use plastic carrier bag, the same as in Wales and Scotland. Bags used for deliveries will incur the charge, as well as those used to carry purchases away from a store.

Exemptions are at the core of the debate. Small and medium-sized businesses will be exempt from the charge in England. We recognise that some wanted SMEs to be included, but we concluded that we need to avoid administrative burdens on start-up and growing businesses in England at a time when we want to support new growth in the economy. It is also worth bearing in mind that the current UK retail market is dominated by a relatively small number of large stores run by companies with more than 500 employees—they employ 65% of the people working in retail and have 69% of all annual turnover of retail businesses. Any retailer who is not covered by the legislation will of course be able to charge for bags voluntarily.

[Joan Walley]

Why are the Government persisting with that when small businesses do not feel the need to be exempted and do not want to be exempted?

[Dan Rogerson]

Some organisations have taken that on. I have met some of them and they have given evidence to the Committee. Other organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, have taken a different position. It is important to look at the implementation of the charge. The huge majority of the bags will be distributed by retailers who will be covered by the charge. We can continue to examine how the exemption operates post-implementation. The smaller retailers who want to make a charge can do so. They are exempt from the compulsion to do so and the reporting of that, which will be an obligation on those who are covered by the charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The reporting system will require retailers to report on the VAT that is paid. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I was covering the importance of where the money goes and our ability to state our expectations of that. As the Chair of Committee said in her opening remarks, the provisions that allow us to do that without requiring primary legislation are in the Act. That is the area in which we work.

[Joan Walley]

I agree with the contradiction that has just been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). If the Minister is not able to clarify that now, it might be helpful for the Committee to have clarification in writing later. The Government’s response to our report says that

“the Government intends to require retailers to publicise the number of bags sold and how the proceeds of the charge have been spent”,

and that they will make an announcement in due course. When will that “due course” be?

[Dan Rogerson]

Does the hon. Lady mean reporting on what we have received? Does she want to know how the information will be published?

[Joan Walley]

indicated assent.

[Dan Rogerson]

With regard to the regulations on the scheme and the explanation of how the scheme will operate, we will be tabling the regulations in December. One of the hon. Lady’s other questions was about the timetable for implementation. It is still our intention to table the regulations by the end of this year and to have the charge come into operation in October next year. That timetable still remains and, obviously, we will have the opportunity to explore the operation of the system in Committee. Should the hon. Lady be a member of that Committee, we could debate any further questions she has, but the reporting of how that money is to be spent will come to the Government, because retailers will have to do it and make it public. I would be very surprised if companies that were taking the charge in and giving it to good causes did not wish to demonstrate clearly to their customers the purpose to which the money was being put. It would be rather strange for them to give money to good causes—I am sure many of those companies are altruistic—and not tell the public about the good causes to which they are giving money. We have seen other schemes in supermarkets in which, as part of their corporate-social responsibility, they demonstrate how they are supporting community activities in the local area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and the hon. Member for Brent North for his sedentary remark about the criteria and specifications. That is why, in the regulations that hon. Members will see by the end of the calendar year, we must ensure that we can give everyone confidence that we understand that point. We must ensure that the biodegradability is of a sufficient standard to satisfy those concerns. However, we want to stimulate the industry to explore the potential for a product to meet the circumstances that I described. We want to stimulate it to innovate and come up with something to meet the standard.

[Joan Walley]

Things get curiouser and curiouser. We have an exemption for something that does not exist, and we do not know what the criteria for it are or what the funding will be to incentivise the new procedure. We seem to have a hypothetical future technology that we are waiting to introduce, which will then surely require an equivalently hypothetical future recycling system. I wish the Minister would accept that. Why does he not go back to the drawing board and say, “Rather than having this hypothetical exemption, we will leave it as it is”? If in future that technology or innovation comes to the market, surely we can change the regulations.

[Dan Rogerson]

Obviously, as I said, the hon. Lady will be able to study the detail of the regulation when it is tabled. The intention behind signalling the desirability of a product that meets the criteria is that that is an important and perfectly reasonable thing to do to stimulate investment in innovation. The hon. Member for Brent North has pointed out that we have studies under way, as is referred to in our response, first, on materials, and secondly on processes for reprocessing bags, to satisfy concerns in that regard. We have had the initial work back. We will review it and consider whether we want to take anything further forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister reassure the House that there has been a full appraisal of the long-term implications of that—one sufficient to reach the conclusions that he has just reached?

[Dan Rogerson]

The assumption, from what the hon. Lady is saying, is that there might be a massive switch to paper bags and that therefore some of the littering issues and so on might continue even if biodegradability and the use of oil and so on—separate questions—are taken aside. I suggest that retailers, who are used to other forms of the policy in the Welsh jurisdiction, will make the charge part of the operation of their businesses. That was another of her questions—she mentioned working with retailers. We have had regular meetings with the British Retail Consortium and others. The fact that a system has been introduced in other jurisdictions means—the vast majority of those businesses operate across those boundaries—that retailers understand how such a system can work and will be prepared for it.

The hon. Lady mentioned the European Union. We are very pleased that the European Union has reached agreement on a robust plan for tackling the blight of plastic bag pollution, but with each member state doing what works best in its own circumstances. The negotiating position adopted by the United Kingdom Government was to safeguard that flexibility, so that member states can take systems forward in the way that is most suitable in their jurisdiction. That was at the heart of what we were trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman has been a Minister, so he knows that decisions that are taken are subject to a process of discussion across Government, across all Departments. I can certainly say that the policy that we have taken forward is not to suit any particular company or any particular technology. It is to meet the obligation to improve environmental outcomes and to deal with the issues of litter, and to generate an income stream for good causes, which we have discussed. That is the focus of the policy.

In concluding my remarks, I thank hon. Members for their close interest in the policy.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

No, I am concluding my remarks. I hope we can agree that the policy is a real step forward, for all the reasons we have discussed. I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. Lady and her Committee that we take all these questions very seriously, and that we will move forward on the basis of robust scientific evidence—that will be the basis of our decision—particularly on the question of biodegradability, which I know is of interest to many people. I thank her again for securing today’s debate, and the Liaison Committee for facilitating it. I also thank her for the work her Committee did on the policy.

[Joan Walley]

May I say first that the Minister has been most gracious in allowing so many interventions? Perhaps that was more a function of the attendance at the debate, but it was very helpful in flushing out some of the issues.

We have had a very wide-ranging debate. I am particularly pleased to have heard the interventions from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who I know takes marine pollution concerns seriously. The contributions certainly from our Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brent North, and from the Minister have helped us perhaps not always to clarify, but certainly to be better informed.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Joan Walley]

I am not sure whether I am able to take interventions in the summing-up. I shall take guidance on that from you, Mrs Brooke.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I will allow a brief intervention. I suspect that that will not be the case, but we do have time on our side, but this must be a one and only, not an inquisition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

I take note of what my hon. Friend says, and I was about to come on to that point. Before I do, it remains for me to say that the Environmental Audit Committee report was an informed one, and if our recommendations had been adopted, they would have resulted in proposals that were fit for purpose and easy to understand. That would have been a significant step forward. We do not feel that the Government’s proposals, with the exceptions that they contain, will meet the existing need. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will take away a little of the battering that he has received in the debate and put it to good use.

On my hon. Friend’s point about the oxo-biodegradable issues, I want to help the Minister. I suggest that it would be helpful, in view of the concerns that have been expressed during the debate, for the Minister to give the Environmental Audit Committee further written feedback on the meetings that have taken place. We need to know categorically exactly what lobbying there has been from any company that was involved in putting forward proposals. I think that that would put the matter straight, and I am sure that it would be possible with the help of the Minister’s officials. We are simply asking for full transparency on the matter.

I hope that the regulations will be introduced shortly, but they are not fit for purpose as they stand. We need something that is clearer and that will contribute to the overarching agenda that we need to protect our environment. I thank all who have contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

National Pollinator Strategy

Joan Walley Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I was going to make a long speech, but in view of the time left and all that has been said, I will condense the important points that arise—as the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, said—from the work done by the Environmental Audit Committee, not just in one report, which is authoritative, but in the follow-up report on the national pollinator strategy.

Many members of the Committee are in the Chamber this afternoon—I apologise to the Minister for the fact that, for personal reasons, I will not be here for the wind-up speeches—and we want him to take into account, before the Government finalise the national strategy, the authoritative work we have done, the evidence we have received and the detailed hearings we have had. We owe that to the many organisations and people who have engaged skilfully and diplomatically with the Government, from Friends of the Earth, to the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, to Buglife, to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to get this national pollinator strategy. It would be unfortunate in the extreme if the detailed work, good will and campaigning that has been done all around the country to get the strategy fit for purpose was not taken into account as the Government prepare to finalise it and make it operational.

[Neil Carmichael]

I endorse what the hon. Lady is saying. The report is very thorough. It has a huge amount of evidence from a wide range of experts and was properly considered by all members of the Select Committee. It is, if I may say so, as I am a member of the Committee, an example of excellent work by a Select Committee. I hope that the Minister takes heed of what he has heard not once but twice or even thrice.

[Joan Walley]

I would say this, wouldn’t I, but the work record of the worker bees on the Environmental Audit Committee is second to none. It is worthy, perhaps, of a detailed meeting with the Minister before he finalises and signs off the national pollinator strategy.

We still have concerns, some of which I think are echoed by the organisations that contributed. We welcome the work that has been done so far by the Government. The fact that we have further reservations, conditions and asks does not mean that we do not welcome what has been done, but there are various areas where further work is needed.

We do not want to see the European Commission’s neonicotinoid ban undermined. We are aware that an application came through in the past 12 months that was withdrawn before the Government finally considered it, but it is important that the ban stays. That prompts the question: what happens at the point when the ban is reviewed? What will happen next? As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) rightly set out, the important issue is the research that will be done and the research that is set out in the draft strategy. We have major concerns relating to transparency and the independence of those doing the research. When my hon. Friends and I met in Brussels, we were surprised to hear from the Commission that some of this important research was being financed not with European money, which we felt would have given it a semblance of independence, but by the agrochemical companies. For that reason, safeguards have to be put in place.

I hope the Minister will address the point about independence, if not now, then later, as it was not thoroughly addressed in the response to our report, which we have tagged to, and made available for, this debate. We need continual scrutiny of how close DEFRA is to the companies carrying out the research. It is one thing to have funding; it is another to contribute to the design. We need a referee—some kind of overall body—to ensure that the research is not designed only by those with vested interests.

[Dr Wollaston]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for making an excellent speech. Are she and the Minister aware of the work of the AllTrials campaign by Sense about Science? In medical research, for example, one serious issue is around publication bias and whether we actually get to see all the research, not just that which gives favourable results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Walley]

The Chair of the Health Select Committee makes a valid point. It is about all aspects of research, as well as peer review; and it is about commercial confidentiality, which business says prevents much of what we want to see in the public domain from being examined so that it can shape and inform our work. The scrutiny and funding of research, now and over the coming years, must be properly addressed in the final version of the national pollinator strategy.

On the precautionary principle, the Government are using poetic licence in their interpretation of the UN’s Rio declaration and the work arising from it. As has been said, where there is not final scientific evidence, we should use the precautionary principle. This should not be trumped by economic issues; if protection is needed for habitats that cannot be protected any other way, there are times when we should follow the precautionary principle.

Bee decline is not just about neonicotinoids; as everyone else has pointed out, including the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), whom I congratulate on the local initiative she has taken, this is about understanding how the work is done and how we can integrate the CAP work with the integrated pest management work. Friends of the Earth thinks that we could be much more ambitious and innovative in our farming methods and improving people’s understanding of how food is produced, if we could be less dependent on pesticides. That has to be worked at in the strategy.

The strategy needs also to set out the importance of public engagement. It is precisely because there has been so much public engagement that the strategy is now almost complete, and we owe it to everyone who has campaigned in their own communities to ensure that they are not alone in taking voluntary action. Where regulation, oversight and commitment are needed, it is important that the Government show that leadership. We concluded that we were strong on the voluntary side, but weaker on where the Government could be more forceful. That needs to be taken into account before the strategy is finally signed off, because the public engagement measures will break down if the feeling is that it is not backed up by Government.

There are other issues, which we did not mention in our report, that have been mentioned in this debate, including the role of the Department for Communities and Local Government. This is not just about farmland; it is about urban areas, green spaces, roadside verges, riverside areas and so on. It is about how we can encourage the habitat that will be needed to provide protection for the bees.

I am conscious of time, so I simply say to the Minister that, as much as this debate is about technical issues, of which we need forensic scrutiny and proper oversight, the fact that we are talking about bees and pollinators shows that it is about something much deeper: something that connects us all to wildlife and nature. We think of all the poets and the literature—I think of W. B. Yeats’ “bee-loud glade” in “The Lake Isle of Innisfree”, and so on. That whole aspect of nature connects us to our landscape. We need an understanding here in Parliament of all that is important, so I simply ask the Minister to ensure that the national strategy is much more fit for purpose and capable of being extended as time goes on and that we gain more from research. If that is the case, the work our Committee has done will have achieved some success.

Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Joan Walley Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I start by thanking the Liaison Committee for making it possible for this debate to take place in Westminster Hall. The background to it is the Rio+20 conference, all the work being done on climate change and the importance of Her Majesty’s Government embedding sustainability into all policies, right the way across government. It is important that the overseas territories are not excluded.

This is the tenth report by the Environmental Audit Committee in this Session, and I thank the members of the Committee, many of whom are here today, for their tremendous work ethic. I also thank the Officers of our Committee, who work so hard behind the scenes on so many different cross-cutting reports, not least this one on the overseas territories.

Our report was launched in March 2013, following up on an earlier report, “Halting biodiversity loss”, which we published in 2008. The feedback that I have had from so many people in so many ways about the importance of the 2008 report and the difference it made makes me absolutely certain that the follow-up to it is critical. I hope that this report—I will come on to the detail of our recommendations in a moment—can make as much difference as the previous one.

We had four oral evidence sessions, with witnesses including non-governmental organisations, civil servants, those working in the United Kingdom overseas territories, developers with an interest in the overseas territories, a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and civil servants from the Department for International Development. By the time we finally published our report, we had taken extensive evidence.

In a way, the purpose of today’s debate is not only to take the Government to task for their response to our recommendations, but to impress upon Parliament that the work we are doing is part of an ongoing process. I refer to the work that many NGOs have done, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds among them—it has done an audit—the continuing discussion taking place among those from the overseas territories involved in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and the further work going on with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the RSPB. With today’s debate, we want to get up a head of steam, to get some kind of momentum, so that the follow-up to our report will truly make a difference. That is so important. I am pleased that the BBC is taking an interest in this matter, through the World Service. Like many, I look forward to the report due out, I think, on 20 May, on the collaborative work with the BBC. Public awareness of the work of the overseas territories is important for us all.

Why is sustainability in the overseas territories so crucial? There are at least 517 globally threatened species in the overseas territories, compared with 194 in the UK. The overseas territories also contain undisturbed habitats of international significance. Those habitats and species are threatened by development. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and I saw that when we were in the Cayman Islands. I have no doubt that there are many examples, right across the overseas territories, of unconstrained development because of a lack of the kind of baseline environment laws that we take for granted in the United Kingdom. Overall, the overseas territories hold more than 90% of British diversity. The RSPB reliably tells us that DEFRA does not have a single staff member dedicated to working with the charity full time, and that DEFRA spends only 0.3% of its biodiversity conservation budget—something like £1.6 million per annum—in the territories. It is no exaggeration to say that our overseas territories contain some of the richest remaining biodiversity on the planet and that we have a duty of care to safeguard it.

The Environmental Audit Committee is particularly interested in overseas territories because all 14 of them are under UK sovereignty; Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for them as matter of constitutional law and has a responsibility to ensure good governance. The hon. Member for Hendon will expand on some of those issues when he comes to speak. It is important to say that our Select Committee was keen to scrutinise sustainability in the overseas territories, but we are mindful of our moral responsibilities. It is important to note that we cannot impose what should and should not happen on other elected Governments, but at the same time, Parliament does have sovereignty and cannot abdicate its responsibilities towards the overseas territories. A fine balance must be struck that leads to protection of the environment and biodiversity while taking sustainability and how to achieve it on board.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s report contained 15 constructive—I would say that—recommendations. I will not give the Government’s response all that many points out of 10, because only three recommendations were wholly and unreservedly taken on board, but three is better than none. I also welcome the greater priority given to sustainability issues at the most recent Joint Nature Conservation Committee meeting, held this year. If nothing else, the report will help to ensure that environmental issues regularly get on to the agenda, which could make an important difference. I am also pleased that the Government agreed with the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation that they should seek, where possible, EU environment funding for overseas territories under the LIFE+ scheme. Will the Minister provide an update on that?

I want to concentrate on some of the recommendations that the Government rejected and to explore why they were rejected. I start with the Government’s comments on paragraphs 22 to 25 of the report about the Aarhus convention, as they are almost indicative of the Government’s response to that and of Parliament’s role in sustainable development. The Aarhus convention is the bottom line. If it is not properly ratified, the work of NGOs and elected Governments in the territories to deal with the weaknesses that the Environmental Audit Committee identified in planning, development and control will be undermined. The Aarhus convention, with the right to information and the opportunity for consultation that it provides, is the starting point for many of the necessary safeguards.

The evidence that the Select Committee received from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office summed up the lack of clarity around how the Government are seeking to ratify and extend the Aarhus convention. The Government response contained inaccuracies and I am pleased that they have now corrected the record and have made it quite clear that they have not sought to extend the Aarhus convention to the overseas territories, which is progress. The Select Committee wants that extension.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on her work and that of the Environmental Audit Committee. As I understand it, the Aarhus convention suggests that the local population should be included in discussions about protected areas and environmental protection, but that clearly did not happen in the case of the British Indian Ocean Territory’s marine protected area. Does the Committee have a view on that?

[Joan Walley]

We believe that the Aarhus convention is the starting point and should apply. We hope that our recommendations will help the Government to work with the overseas territories to find a way to do that. We want clarity, which is necessary above all else.

A key strategic recommendation in the Environmental Audit Committee report is about the overseas territories’ relationship with the United Nations. The overseas territories are not sovereign states, so they are not members of the United Nations, but they are represented by the UK. Given the small populations of the overseas territories—those that are inhabited—that is a sensible arrangement. It is also an opportunity for the UK to fulfil its historical and critical responsibility to the overseas territories by facilitating their engagement with UN treaties and projects.

The UN convention on biological diversity is the flagship treaty to protect biodiversity. The UK has not extended the ratification of the treaty to most overseas territories, so the Select Committee recommended that

“the FCO must agree a timetable to extend ratification of the CBD with all inhabited UKOTs where this has not yet taken place.”

The Government rejected that recommendation, referring to “capacity constraints” and other reasons why overseas territories could not easily do it themselves. They also stated that they have

“no intention of imposing obligations that the UKOTs are ill-equipped to fulfil.”

However, many small independent nations—I could name many—that are not backed by the environmental expertise, support and guidance of the UK have ratified the convention on biological diversity. Is the Minister aware of any overseas territories Government who have stated that they do not want to engage with the convention on biological diversity, which is a flagship UN treaty? If there is no dissent, we should be doing everything possible to get overseas territories included in this biological protection.

The Environmental Audit Committee also recommended in paragraph 19 that

“the FCO immediately extend ratification of the CBD to all uninhabited UKOTs.”

I am a bit puzzled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office response, which neither accepted nor rejected this recommendation. Will the Minister provide a little more clarity on that? The Government did refer to ongoing projects on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which will

“put the territory in a very strong position to have the CBD extended.”

However, that is not quite the same as stating the Government’s position. Will the Minister explain the barriers to extending the ratification of the CBD to all uninhabited overseas territories?

On biodiversity monitoring, the Environmental Audit Committee heard throughout the evidence sessions that the rich biodiversity of the overseas territories has not been effectively catalogued. Unsurprisingly, we recommended that

“Defra must draw together UKOTs Governments, NGOs such as the RSPB, civil society and research institutions to agree a comprehensive research programme to catalogue the full extent of biodiversity in the UKOTs.”

We see that as a precursor to all kinds of other protection. In their response, the Government stated that

“there is no single group responsible for overseeing biodiversity survey, monitoring, research and data management”

and pledged to

“consider whether such a group would add value”.

I wonder whether the Minister has considered whether cataloguing the biodiversity of the overseas territories would add value, and agrees with us that it is important to do it. Perhaps he will also anticipate in his remarks the launch of a report about the collaboration of the RSPB with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I mentioned how struck we were by lack of resources in the overseas territories, and in the UK Government. Much more could be done with all the expertise already available within Government and in local authorities. Perhaps under twinning or other arrangements existing expertise could be used for the benefit of the overseas territories. We think that would be a way forward.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the question of lack of resources, I was struck by the capacity of non-governmental organisations: the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum appears to operate on a shoestring, and has had its funding reduced. Should the Government be looking for ways to ensure that the NGOs with which they must have a working relationship are properly funded?

[Joan Walley]

I agree. There is an important issue here: we may be in a time of austerity, as everyone reminds us at every opportunity, but that does not mean that the only cuts to be made, or the first ones, should be those that affect the environment. Our report is intended to highlight the fact that there would be many dividends for the overseas territories, and for the UK as a whole, from investing in and safeguarding our natural resources, and valuing them properly. That means resources for NGOs as well as Governments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said.

It is clear—we certainly saw it in the Cayman Islands—that many NGOs operate on good will, on a shoestring. It is not a decision for us to impose on overseas territories Governments, but there may be all kinds of ways in which they could adopt best practice with a view to funding some of the work that is needed. All kinds of suggestions were made to us, including a sustainability tax. There is almost a case for a Joint Nature Conservation Committee agenda on ways of identifying sources of finance to ensure that much-needed, urgent work gets done.

The Government might well ask why we made our recommendation on national lottery funding, but we felt that the environments of the overseas territories could be given protection through grants from the national lottery. The Heritage Lottery Fund currently funds conservation projects in the UK. I am sure that we can all think of constituency examples. It is legally permitted to fund conservation projects in the overseas territories, but that has never happened, because the Department for Culture, Media and Sport directed the fund to prioritise accessibility for UK residents in making grants; this is another example of the cross-cutting nature of the agenda and how it involves all Departments.

We recommended that the DCMS should extend the right to play the national lottery to overseas territories residents, which would allow it to direct the Heritage Lottery Fund to accord equal priority to applications for projects in the overseas territories and applications for projects in the UK. At a time when not much money is available, and where to look for it is an issue, we felt that our proposal might be a way forward, and were disappointed when the Government rejected it, citing a number of barriers, including

“installing and running lottery terminals in such distant and disparate areas”

and

“the need to change legislation”.

I gently suggest to the Minister that so far the arguments against our suggestion have not been powerful enough, and I ask him to re-examine it. Perhaps he will in particular consider our recommendation about the internet.

The extension of the right to play the national lottery in the UK overseas territories would require a statutory instrument, not primary legislation, so the legislative burden would not be excessive. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. I am by no means suggesting that national lottery funding would be the one way of resolving all the underfunding issues of environmental projects and operations; but it is one small way of providing some much-needed investment for specific projects. I hope that the Government will consider that, and tell us why they have so far resisted that approach.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) will raise maritime issues in some detail, but I wanted to mention that the best biodiversity in most of the overseas territories is on the coast and under water. We want marine and coastal protection to be given special priority. I wonder how we can have sovereignty over the fifth largest exclusive maritime area in the world without having strategic plans in place. I would like the Minister to respond to our recommendations about a marine protected area in the Pitcairn Islands. The UK has signed up to the UN Aichi biodiversity targets. Target 11 is to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020, and the Pitcairn Islands have asked the UK to establish a fully protected marine protected area around them. We believe that that would make a substantial contribution to achieving that significant world target. We therefore recommended the creation of such a marine protected area.

The Government gave reasons why they could not do that. We would like to know what things they could do. Is the Minister aware that our recommendations refer to satellite tracking as a practical and cost-effective enforcement tool? Has he made any assessment of the use of satellite technology in that way? We heard that a line on a map would be worth a great deal for marine protection, because it would set legal boundaries that responsible operators would respect, and provide a basis for future enforcement action. What is the Minister’s response to that argument?

There are 14 overseas territories, each with a wealth of biodiversity and many challenges, so it is impossible in this afternoon’s short debate to cover all the issues referred to in our report. Hon. Members will be able to expand on some of those issues in depth. I want to pay tribute to the inspirational work of the director of the Cayman Islands Department of Environment, Gina Ebanks-Petrie, whom the hon. Member for Hendon and I met. We felt humbled to see the work that she does, alongside many volunteers and the newly elected Cayman Islands Government, whose changing approach to the environment and adoption of new environmental legislation since our visit is paying dividends.

I could talk in detail about the waste tip that we saw there and the urgent need for action on that, and about the need for the same kind of standards that we have in the UK. I could talk about the need for expertise to make it possible to establish safeguards and standards, so that waste will not be burned and residue will not leach into the ocean. I could talk at length about various visits that we made. There were students from Aberystwyth university, and seeing them in action made us all the more determined to think about opportunities for twinning and sharing business expertise. The JNCC needs to be able to provide the machinery and framework to promote best practice.

I briefly want to mention our visit to the turtle farm. I stress that policy on and the operation of the farm are entirely a matter for the Cayman Islands Government. Any Government, however, whether a UK overseas territory or not, must take account of the importance of safeguarding biodiversity. I welcome the Cayman Islands Government’s intention to enter into dialogue with the World Society for the Protection of Animals about certain continuing concerns. If our report has helped to facilitate dialogue between the interested parties, so much the better.

I could also mention other details, including some about the Turks and Caicos Islands, where scheduling of the debt is causing issues that need to be looked at closely. In other islands, there are problems with invasive species and biosecurity, which we could help to resolve by providing expertise.

In conclusion, with such a wealth of biodiversity in our overseas territories, we require a step change in how the Government relate to them. The change of approach should involve addressing, rather than dismissing, the individual recommendations of our report; building on the work of the JNCC, individual Governments and NGOs; and bringing the combined expertise and resources of all relevant Departments to support the UK Government’s strategic role for the UK overseas territories, as well as the role of the UKOT Governments. In the Minister’s reply, I hope that he will engage with us on the issues, which between us we will raise, and give real cause for optimism that the sentiments of the 2012 White Paper will be translated into real action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I indicate that because there was no vote in the main Chamber as anticipated, we must conclude proceedings by 4.30 pm? I therefore propose to start the winding-up speeches at 10 past 4. There are three people who want to speak before then, and I want to fit in the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), who led the debate.

[Joan Walley]

On a point of order, Mr Benton. I understand that the previous debate was extended because a Division was expected in the House, taking time from this debate.

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

I understand that, and I have sought guidance on it. My understanding is that business must conclude at 4.30, which is why I made the announcement.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to the Liaison Committee and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) for securing the debate. I should also say that I am disappointed that, in a way, our debate has been undermined by the previous one. Let me reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), that although I am giving the Government response to the debate, we take this issue seriously across Government. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), gave evidence when the Environmental Audit Committee was considering the issue, and we work closely on it.

It is clear from today’s debate that people are very passionate about our overseas territories and the rich natural flora and fauna that they support. The UK has 14 very diverse overseas territories, 11 of which are inhabited, and between them they contain, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, about 90% of the biodiversity found in the UK and its overseas territories combined.

I shall start by talking about some of the constitutional issues, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) dedicated most of his contribution. Many of the recommendations made by the Committee and raised again today pertain to that aspect. The constitutional position was set out very clearly in the 2012 White Paper, “The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability”, published by the Foreign Office. It made it clear that although the Government have a fundamental objective and responsibility for the security and good governance of the territories, each has its own constitution and local laws, and powers are therefore devolved to the maximum extent possible.

The inhabited territories are constitutionally responsible for the protection and conservation of their natural environments and for developing appropriate environmental policies and legislation. There is no appetite in the territories for the UK Government to take a greater role in managing environmental issues on their behalf, but that is not to say that we cannot provide considerable support. I want to come on to that issue later.

[Joan Walley]

I will be brief, as our time is so constrained, but does the Minister not agree that there is a difference between management and a strategic overview?

[George Eustice]

There is, and I will come back to that point, because I want to talk about some of the international aspects.

The second issue that I want to touch on is that of staff, because several hon. Members have suggested that DEFRA has no one dedicated to this subject. In fact, there are four DEFRA staff working on overseas territories issues, and they include the head of our international biodiversity policy unit. The report suggested that there should be more visits by DEFRA staff to the overseas territories. I am sure that there would be no shortage of volunteers to undertake those visits to see the wonderful specimens of wildlife that we have there, but I question the value of spending money on air fares when we could be spending money on projects that will deliver and will enhance the biodiversity of these areas. Also, not carrying out physical visits to these areas does not mean that they are not in regular contact with their counterparts in the territories. They certainly are. For instance, earlier this week we were speaking to officials from Tristan da Cunha about the islands’ biosecurity needs and the exciting news that a new bird species may have been identified on one of the islands. I am told that it is a prion and similar to a kiwi. We await peer review of that new discovery.

We also organise workshops and training for the territories. For example, in March, officials organised a practical workshop on how to implement the convention on international trade in endangered species. It brought territory officials together with representatives from DEFRA, the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the JNCC, Kew gardens, Border Force and the Government Legal Service. We also offer access to expertise and a range of services, including a plant pest identification service provided through the Food and Environment Research Agency which helps to protect both biodiversity and agriculture in the territories. That service has helped the territories to put in place measures to combat invasive invertebrate pests, and has to date identified 16 species new to science.

There is also, of course, regular discussion at ministerial level. We have the Joint Ministerial Council, which brings together UK Ministers and territory leaders and representatives and is organised collaboratively. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that we should prioritise greater involvement of the territories in setting the agenda for those meetings, but I assure hon. Members that we already do that. We already have regular meetings with the UK-based representatives of the territory Governments in the run-up to Joint Ministerial Council meetings and, following discussions with them, we held Minister-led plenary sessions on the environment in 2012 and on renewable energy in 2013. Responding to specific territory requests, we also held in 2013 a technical discussion in which territory representatives were able to speak to UK experts on a range of environmental issues.

International agreements were mentioned by a number of speakers. As the Select Committee rightly pointed out, protection of the environments of the territories is relevant to the goals and targets set out in the convention on biological diversity’s strategic plan, which 193 countries around the world, including the UK, have already committed to implementing. As the Committee also pointed out, the convention has so far been extended only to four of the UK’s 14 overseas territories.

The Government recognise that most of the territories are small islands or island groups that face capacity constraints, which may affect their ability to consider or implement treaties. In such circumstances, we do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the territories, the UK or the wider environment to impose on the territories obligations that they are ill equipped to fulfil. We do, however, encourage territory Governments to join in the UK’s instrument of ratification of core multilateral environmental agreements. That includes working with them to ensure that they have the necessary measures in place to fulfil their obligations, providing technical advice and building capacity before extension of ratification takes place. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made clear, the Select Committee recommended that the CBD be extended to other overseas territories. Although we believe that that is a matter for the territories themselves, I am pleased to be able to inform hon. Members today that my officials are currently working with a further three territories on just such an extension of the CBD.

Funding is important. The Committee’s own report acknowledged that DEFRA spending on the UK overseas territories has increased since 2007-08, and increased sixfold between 2010-11 and 2012-13. We do that mainly through mechanisms such as Darwin Plus. That cross-Government grant scheme, co-funded by DEFRA, the FCO and the Department for International Development, funds environmental projects in many of the territories. In the past two years, Darwin Plus has committed nearly £3.7 million to 29 projects in the territories. Returning to the issue of international agreements, it is important to note that in many cases the grants that are offered help to deliver and advance the objectives that were set out by the territories in the environmental charters, when those were put together and agreed on in 2001.

Migratory Birds (Malta)

Joan Walley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Randall]

I am not entirely sure. All I know is that the European Commissioner’s time is running out and it is not the best time to discuss such matters, so I think that we will return to them in a couple of months.

The main law that defends our shared wildlife is the EU birds directive, but a new environmental inspections directive is also under consideration. However, we cannot be too cocky. We must get our own house in order, as the illegal persecution of birds still happens in this country, including the recent killing of some red kites in Ross-shire. We cannot lecture people unless we get our house in order—although I stress that I am not trying to lecture the Maltese people.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, alongside the UK Government taking the matter up with the European Commission, it is also important to hold bilateral talks with Malta to see whether some agreement can be reached?

[Sir John Randall]

I like the idea, but this is a European thing. I do not want the Maltese to think that Britain is pushing them; other European countries, such as Holland and Germany, are thinking exactly the same. It just happens that we are in the UK Parliament today.

There is considerable public support in the UK for stronger action. In 2010, 230,000 people signed a petition calling on the Government to do more to end the illegal killing of our own birds of prey. With the publication of the England biodiversity strategy, the coalition Government committed themselves making it one of their priorities.

Returning to Malta, it is important to recognise that hunting is not a national pastime in Malta and that there is a majority in Malta who want the practice to stop. BirdLife Malta seeks to use the Referenda Act 1973 to force a national referendum to ban spring hunting permanently. It has collected 45,000 signatures so far, which is some 10% of the Maltese population, and we hope for a referendum in early 2015. If anybody wants to do something constructive, there is a fund to help the referendum campaign. I am sure that it can be found online and that all donations will be gratefully received.

When discussing hunters in Malta, we are talking about a group of fewer than 10,000 people who are damaging species that are precious to the public across Europe. In recent days, a young lady called Michela Spiteri wrote the following on the Times of Malta website:

“We want to be able to enjoy the little countryside we have unrestrainedly, without being subjected to the shooting sounds and the wrath of territorial hunters who, after all, have no business telling the rest of us where to get off. And above all, we are entitled to wash our hands of and not to want anything to do with the veritable bloodbath that this cruel and illegal exemption brings about.”

That is the spirit of the youth in Malta and that is what I want to encourage today.

In all other respects, I am sure that Malta is a great place for tourism. I believe strongly, as someone who used to lead birdwatching trips around the world, that if the slaughter was stopped, Malta would rapidly become a favourite destination for birdwatchers and their families at key migration periods, which would actually extend the tourist season. Like Chris Packham, for whom I have the strongest respect, and others, I am certainly not calling for a boycott—far from it. I want the Maltese people to know that we in the UK support the majority that want the cruel practice to end. I hope that the House will join me today in condemning bird killing in Malta and that the Minister will do everything possible to help bring it to an end by raising it with his European counterparts in appropriate forums in the European Union. I have been amazed by the reaction not only from the public, but also from colleagues across the House. This is a half-hour debate that traditionally involves a Member and the Minister, yet some Members have not been able intervene. There is a positive way forward and we must keep the topic in the public mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Walley Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that case. He has a long track record of speaking on climate change, and on mitigation and adaptation. I agree that we must continue to ensure that this country meets all the demands that will be made of us by the changing climate.

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

Does the Minister acknowledge that the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change recommended that the deficit of £500 million on flood defence spending needed to be urgently addressed? Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that there is a firm commitment from the Government in this spending review to providing that £500 million for flood defences, which is now urgently needed because of climate change?

[Dan Rogerson]

I very much welcome the work that Lord Krebs and his sub-committee have done on these issues. We think that some of the information is based on older data that have been updated by the Environment Agency, so we do not entirely recognise the figures he gives. The Government have secured a £2.3 billion capital settlement in the next spending review period, which will mean we are spending more than ever before on flood defences.

Flooding

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her supportive comments. Emphatically yes, we want spending on maintenance to continue. That is why I added a further £5 million to that budget for 2015-16. For further information, although there was a 1% reduction in budgets across DEFRA, I have not passed that on to the flood budget. Again, that shows our absolute determination to protect flood schemes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise partnership schemes. I have been around the country to look at tremendous projects, and only today I was on the Thames where there are prospects of extending the Jubilee river scheme that would require partnership spending by six local councils.

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

Is it not the case that the sum being spent is way below what the Environment Agency said in 2009 would need to be spent to keep pace with climate change? Is not the real fact that, as the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change’s report states, the

“extreme events seen in recent years will become the new normal”

and that we need to do far more? We need urgently and immediately to review the cuts being made to the Environment Agency.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee for her comments. Emphatically yes, we have reacted—look at what we are doing. I agreed a whole range of projects with the noble Lord Smith and we got them passed in a difficult spending round. We have agreed extra funding, as I have just told the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for revenue spending and we have agreed, unprecedentedly, a programme of increased spending on capital up until 2021. We are spending more money in this spending round than in the previous four years, we have brought in partnership funding and we have set out an ambitious programme. We are reacting—the hon. Lady needs only to look at what we are doing on the ground.

Water Bill

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

That is one reason why I support the Welsh model of a not-for-profit company, because, as I say, I feel that the general public have been ripped off throughout this period.

Let me just finish off with my last couple of examples, because I would not want to miss them out: United Utilities was fined £75,000 for management failures that contributed to a fire in October 2013; and Severn Trent Water received a £30,000 fine for sewage pollution in September last year. The performance record of these companies is that not only do they not tackle the leakages and the real need for infrastructure investment, but they are polluting the very water they are supposed to be protecting and supplying.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned Severn Trent Water. Given the pollution incidents involving water companies, does he agree that there is an urgent need to examine the court costs and fines imposed on water companies? Does he also agree that there is a real danger that some companies might prefer to go ahead, pollute and accept a fine because that approach is nowhere near as expensive as making the investment in the first place?

[John McDonnell]

The drive for profits is making these companies ignore their duty towards the wider environment, and the fines and costs are relatively marginal in comparison with the profits they make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make. There is great concern among the farming community that farms may be excluded whereas the farm house may be included. I commend my hon. Friend’s knowledge, because she worked in the insurance industry for a time. We need to know whether farms and people working from their own homes are going to be included, and what the position will be for small businesses, because this could put them out of business in some of the areas that we have seen flooded over the past two years in repeat flooding incidents. It has also been brought to my attention, although, unfortunately, too late to have tabled an amendment, that there is concern that blocks of flats—leasehold flats—may be excluded from this arrangement. That may be news to the Minister as well, but before Third Reading he might like to ponder whether such blocks will be excluded.

Our amendments to clause 51 address concerns relating to the exclusion of small companies such as charities and, as I have mentioned, farms under the new Flood Re proposals in the Bill. Any business based in a property that is primarily a residential one, and on which the occupier therefore pays council tax, would fall within the Flood Re scheme. Any business based in premises used primarily for business will not be covered. It is extremely important that we understand these issues. For the first time that I can remember, under the Flood Re scheme, once it is up and running, the Government will be added as an insurer of last resort if in the three years before the fund has built up we suffer an exceptional one-in-a-thousand-year incident.

In the Public Bill Committee, the ABI stated that Flood Re is not the solution for small businesses and that there is not a sufficient evidence basis for providing insurance cover for small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses is concerned that small businesses that have affordability problems will not be covered, other than in respect of the insurance premiums or excess that they might seek to defray. Although they do not pay council tax, they do pay business rates and therefore could be rated in a similar way to household customers under Flood Re. There remain a lot of known unknowns with Flood Re as to why a council band rate has been chosen and which particular band rate has been opted for, but that is a separate debate. If there is a lack of evidence, further investigations and monitoring should be conducted with regard to small businesses and how they might cope with sourcing flood insurance in the free market.

Our amendments to clause 53 would have the effect of ensuring that insurance companies cover for any liability in excess of a one-in-200-year loss. Our amendments seek greater clarification of the Government’s role in this scenario of a one-in-200-year loss, and, in particular, how the taxpayer would be protected. As I have mentioned, the Government will, for the first time, be the insurer of last resort. In later years, after the fund has built up, I do not believe that that will be a problem, but we are seeking the Minister’s reassurance about what the implications will be in respect of the first three years. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that there is no Government liability for Flood Re and that the Government have made it clear that Flood Re is not guaranteed above the one-in-200-year level, so he might just like to revisit that and clarify the point.

Our amendment 8 would put the Government’s commitment in the Bill and create certainty for all concerned as to who will assume the additional liability. A one-in-200-year loss scenario would be the total value of claims from households reinsured through Flood Re that, during the course of a year, actuaries would not expect to be exceeded in 99.5% of years. Expressed in a different way, that would mean that the actuaries would be 99.5% confident that the limit would not be exceeded in any one year. It is important to note that that is not the same as a one-in-200-year flood event; the ABI has estimated that this would mean flooding six times worse than that experienced in 2007. Obviously, neither the Minister nor the insurance industry will yet be able to say what the cost of the recent floods has been, but I hope that he will see fit to lend his support to our amendments, and I commend them to the House.

[Joan Walley]

I am fortunate to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who speaks with the greatest authority on these subjects, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber would agree. I particularly share her concern about drainage and surface water, and I agree with the points she made earlier about the need to ensure that highways authorities also have statutory duties, so that we can deal with this issue in a joined-up way. The debate on this group of provisions is important because we have had pre-legislative scrutiny by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the draft Water Bill and subsequent debate in that Committee. When the Minister addresses the various comments that have been made, we will see the extent to which the Government are listening to what Parliament is saying about the amendments. There may not necessarily be agreement on all of them; I am talking about the amendments that seek genuinely to try to improve matters on the whole issue of water. We have an opportunity to put in place legislation that is fit for purpose, so I hope that improvements will be made.

[Thomas Docherty]

It will probably not cheer my hon. Friend to hear that every single amendment tabled in Committee by Opposition Members, and indeed by coalition Members, was rejected, even though the Minister had previously agreed with them in the Select Committee.

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. As I have said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, so we will wait to hear what the Minister says in response. Given that the Bill has further stages to go through before Royal Assent—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) nodding—I think that it is the Opposition’s duty to press the Government as much as possible, because it is important that Parliament does the right thing. Even if the Government do not make concessions at this stage, there will be an opportunity in the other place to put more flesh on the Bill and to make it much more fit for purpose. We will wait to see what further progress we can make.

I will speak briefly to new clause 6, which stands in my name, because I realise that many Members wish to speak. I want to introduce my comments by considering the issue of contaminated land. It is clear to me from the work I have done recently that there is a problem with how we deal with contaminated land. The current regime and the funding for it, particularly that which involves local authorities, is not fit for purpose, and it needs to be. We are dealing with a huge amount of legacy problems. I do not want the Government to set up a whole new regime without giving due consideration to the preventive measures that would need to be put in place in relation to fracking and shale gas extraction.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would rule me out of order if I were to speak this evening on whether we should have fracking or shale gas extraction. The point I want to make is that if it is to go ahead, with the enormous tax concessions it currently has, there needs to be a proper regime in place that relates to water, water quality and concerns about contamination. It is for that reason that I have tabled new clause 6. I acknowledge that, were the Government to act on the concerns I am raising, there would need to be consequential amendments to paragraph 9 of schedule 20 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, so I do not want the Minister simply to claim on a technical point that the new clause is unworkable because it is not thorough in that regard.

My understanding is that the principles that the polluter should pay and that prevention is much better than an end-of-pipe solution mean that we should be dealing at this stage with the procedures that need to be put in place to prevent contamination of water as a result of fracking. I point out that the new clause is supported by many non-governmental organisations working on the front line to deal with that, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Angling Trust, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Salmon & Trout Association.

New clause 6 would amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 to introduce a liability guarantee to ensure that fracking companies have the funds available to pay the clean-up costs should an accident occur during the fracking process. I think that is eminently sensible. A similar amendment was tabled in Committee and briefly debated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) just pointed out, but it got nowhere. I believe that it was important to table it again for further consideration, mainly because the Minister’s response in Committee did not offer adequate assurances that the public purse would not be hit should an accident occur.

As I understand it, the Minister’s main argument was that the existing regulations on the statute book already ensure that operators are technically and financially competent to carry out fracking activities. However, a financial competence check is carried out only in specific circumstances, and competence is not the same as securing a form of financial provision or guarantee for long-term environmental liabilities. In other words, it does not guarantee that a company has put in place funding or insurance for dealing with an accident; it only provides a snapshot in time of its financial situation. I am reminded of the complex discussions there have been about the ownership of football clubs and where due diligence should lie.

Water Bill

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). As Chair of the Select Committee that has conducted detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, she speaks with great knowledge of and authority on these matters. The Secretary of State would have been well advised to listen carefully to her comments, particularly in view of the greater role and scope there now is for Select Committees, especially in speaking in favour of amendments. The Government must urgently reflect on, and respond to, her points in respect of how surface water mixes with sewage in flooding situations. The cross-cutting issues that she raised in relation to water—not least highways and expenditure on highways, which are matters for the Department for Communities and Local Government and other Departments—need to be looked at in a holistic way. I hope that, in the winding-up speech tonight and in Committee, Ministers will take the Select Committee recommendations seriously.

Today’s debate takes me back to the first Committee of this House that I was a member of, which considered the paving Bill for the legislation that led to water privatisation. It was very divisive at the time and was rightly opposed by the Opposition and by many of the environmental groups that believed water to be a natural eco-service, and that the concept of paying large dividends to shareholders at a time when investment was needed in the water infrastructure was simply the wrong way of addressing how to secure investment and manage our water supply. A quarter of a century later, the private companies that were created—and indeed Ofwat, the regulatory body—have had mixed fortunes and mixed success. However, where we are now and the current structure has to be our starting point for taking the Water Bill forward. Today, the challenges we face are greater than ever, particularly, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), given that we are getting close to the finalisation of the next price review in 2015. It is absolutely critical that as much pressure as possible be applied in order to get this right.

Top of my list of questions is, how do we ensure a safe, affordable water supply for domestic use, for industry, for farming, for all areas of the UK, particularly given that different administrative arrangements apply, which does not make matters easy? There are parts of the Bill I do welcome, not least the one dealing with flooding and insurance, but like many of the Members who intervened earlier, I feel that the flooding issue must be dealt with urgently and in detail. A statement of intent is not quite the same as a measure on the statute book.

[Oliver Colvile]

Is the hon. Lady aware that last autumn in the south-west, we had a massive amount of rain that affected our entire transport network and cut off our railway lines for a very long time?

[Joan Walley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and that is exactly the point I am making: our water policy needs to take into account the whole issue of mitigation to prevent such situations, but it also needs to be adaptable. The adaptation that we need requires huge amounts of investment and a whole new, collaborative approach to planning. The Bill has been brought forward by DEFRA, but as the Energy and Climate Change Committee has pointed out, it is the problems associated with climate change that are bringing about flooding, and we have to find new ways of dealing with them urgently. It has taken much too long to deal with outstanding flooding insurance claims. Importantly, it is a question not just of how we deal with individual claims and of having an insurance system in place, but of how we deal with all the associated disruption.

As we approach the European elections—I am sure that many of us here will be thinking about what Europe has done for us—how do we ensure that water supply and management fits within the context of the European water framework directive? We have a fundamental disconnect at the heart of water policy which the Bill could actually put right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, the Bill is a wasted opportunity. The water companies, regulated by Ofwat, supply water, but at a local level there is little meaningful collaboration, accountability, transparency or resource, as has been mentioned, to ensure that we have in place what is needed to meet the requirements of the water framework directive.

The directive has two key objectives: an environmental objective, based on the premise of preventing further deterioration and achieving “good status” in all waters; and a managerial objective aimed at creating integrated water management at the river basin level to ensure overall co-ordination of water policy. Here, I want to make a plea to the Government and to DEFRA on behalf of the Environment Agency. The agency needs to be fully resourced for its task of leading the framework directive, in order to enable it to identify significant water management issues, to develop measures to address these at the river basin district level, and to develop and publish the plans for implementing these measures, known as the river basin management plans.

Given the length of time it takes to get legislation on to the statute book, equipping the Environment Agency to work within the framework to carry out its responsibilities needs to be looked at in parallel with the Water Bill before us. Let me give an example of the current unsatisfactory position. When the Government set up the Canal & River Trust in 2012, they committed to a new structure for the canal network which included the navigational waters—some 2,000 miles of canals and river navigations in England and Wales. These rivers were to be handed over to the trust to ensure certainty and long-term funding through the trust arrangements. However, we now know that the Chancellor has reneged on this commitment, and the plans have been put on hold. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for agreeing to meet me to discuss this issue, as I believe it is vital that this transfer take place and be fully funded.

There is a further concern, which was touched on in an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). Through clause 12, Ofwat is to be given the power to intervene in private supplier agreements with water undertakers, with the apparent intent of assisting smaller private water suppliers in their commercial relations with undertakers. Not surprisingly, the Canal & River Trust is alarmed that Ofwat will therefore be able to vary or terminate water sales agreements at the request of the undertaker and without the agreement of the trust. I heard the Secretary of State’s rather complacent reply to my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies, he will tell us what specific, constructive discussions he will have with the trust on this issue, so that we can make amendments to the Bill that will safeguard delivery of the trust’s charitable objectives when the Bill’s legislative passage is completed.

There is uncertainty about other aspects of the Bill, as well. The Bill is all about the economics of, and very little about the environmental and social aspects of, water policy. It mirrors the assumptions that lay behind the changes to the water industry proposed back in 1987, rather than looking at the assumptions we need to make today for the future. Here, I would like to give credit to the former Environment Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who only last week in the press disclosed how close we were to drought just before the 2012 Olympics. There are also many other factors that point to the need for long-term planning.

We need to take account of the work of the Natural Capital Committee, which is looking to embed the value of natural capital in the national accounts and policy making as soon as possible. We must also recognise the need to look for a credible long-term plan to restore our natural capital, and recognise the work of the Committee on Climate Change. Reference was made earlier to the adaptation sub-committee report, which highlights the need to incentivise efficient water management and to have a price for water that better reflects its scarcity. Of course, there are also the risks associated with water flooding. All these factors point to the need for a much wider, all-encompassing approach to water than the one the Bill provides for.

We should also address the issue of Ofwat having a primary sustainability duty. Its role of granting new water supply licences and overseeing bulky supply agreements should include consideration of the sustainability of water sources. There is common agreement that, without such a duty, we will see over-abstraction, over-licensing and greater environmental damage to our already overstressed river systems. We have heard the Secretary of State’s response to concerns about fracking. He has stated that all the protection and regulation that we need is already in place. However, the proposal for financial guarantees in relation to pollution that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood outlined will be vital, and I hope that they will be incorporated in the Bill as it completes its passage through both Houses. I know from the initial meeting that the Minister kindly organised recently that there is widespread concern among many organisations, including the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Angling Trust, about the need for a primary sustainability duty, not only on resilience, to be incorporated in the Bill. Will the Government table an amendment on sustainable development? Will the Minister tell us how he intends to deal with this issue?

I want briefly to broaden the debate. Following the discussions that I have had with many different experts in the industry, I do not believe that we should be carrying on with business as usual. Instead, we should be gearing up to a different set of policies designed for the 21st century. The confluence of the various factors I have mentioned means that we should be taking a more fundamental step change in how we invest in improving the environment and safeguarding our water supplies.

I would like to see far more local governance arrangements that would fit with the river basin concept, involving not just water companies but local councils, farmers and other organisations working together on a risk-based approach. I should mention that some water companies are starting to think outside the box. I refer the House to a recent document published by Severn Trent Water, “Changing Course through the sustainable implementation of the Water Framework Directive”. We need much more collaboration of that kind, but the Bill does not really give it to us.

I want to mention the work that I have been doing in my constituency to bring all the different partners together. This has culminated in an application for European funding under the Life Plus programme, which would enable us to implement measures that would prevent pollution in the River Trent. We need to see much more of that kind of approach. Water efficiency should also be promoted.

The Bill will promote greater competition, but what will it do to challenge traditional kinds of capital investment? We should be looking into different kinds of investment. Expensive engineering solutions are not always the way forward, even though the water companies depend on capital value for the returns that they make. If the Government can be persuaded to introduce an obligation for sustainability into Ofwat’s powers, Ofwat could look at a return on revenue expenditure, too. We need to look at the kind of investments involved. The Bill could enable Ofwat to take a much more proactive role in vetting companies’ proposals for investment.

I would also like to see the dividends paid out to water company shareholders managed differently. Yes, money is needed for investment in water management, but it would be so much better if the profits could stay in the business and be reinvested, rather than global private equity companies that do not necessarily have a long-term commitment to our river basins paying out massive returns—well above what we can earn in interest from our bank account—to shareholders.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is describing the model used by Welsh Water, a not-for-profit company that is responsible to its customers, rather than to shareholders.

[Joan Walley]

Indeed. One difficulty is that we are looking at the provision of water for the whole of the United Kingdom, despite the different administrative arrangements that have been put in place by the Parliaments in the different Administrations. The way in which the money is reinvested in Wales is hugely beneficial. As I have said, we should be thinking outside the box in regard to how we incentivise the necessary investment in our water industry.

[Hywel Williams]

We are talking about non-distributable profit. Any profit that is made is reinvested in the system and in creating lower prices. I am not here to praise Dwr Cymru Welsh Water in particular, but its price rise next year will be 1%. Given that that is lower than inflation, it will effectively be a price cut.

[Joan Walley]

That just shows that there are all kinds of different ways of looking at this, and that we do not have to depend on the present traditional arrangements. The Bill should really be looking at the challenges that we face, rather than promoting business as usual.

With more than 2 million households in England and Wales being forced to spend more than 5% of their income on water, it is clear that the Government’s approach is not working. The Bill should do something about that. We need a national affordability scheme to help those struggling to pay their bills, and it should be funded by the water companies themselves. The fact that water bills are rising by 1.8% above the rate of inflation when we are seeing investor returns of 17.5% across all the companies demonstrates just how unfair the whole structure is.

Given the challenges of climate change and the likelihood of increased flooding, balancing affordability with our wider environmental commitments to mitigate and adapt to flooding will involve ever-greater calls for the right kind of investment in the water industry. This will require a cross-cutting response from the Government, and detailed policy measures that will require the Treasury, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government to be equally committed to the measures coming out of DEFRA. As we approach future challenges, and the final implementation date of the water framework directive, households and businesses will need to access affordable water supplies. Key changes will be needed throughout the passage of the Bill.

The Government will need to make a step change in regulatory, social, environmental and fiscal policy, but the water companies, businesses, farmers, householders, local authorities and the regulator will also need to refocus on their long-term objectives and on delivery mechanisms if we are truly to value water as a natural resource and a vital component of everyday life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I will certainly bear your comments in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). His beat as a Minister did not really include Wales, of course, but I came across him in the Science and Technology Committee. His sincerity and commitment were manifest in those meetings. Let me also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and say how much I agreed with her remarks about sustainability and fracking, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would also have endorsed had she not had to leave.

Water has a huge significance for people in Wales. Our way of looking at water must be framed by Tryweryn and the other valleys that were drowned to provide water, largely for conurbations in England. I am also aware that I am standing on the shoulders of others who came before me, such as Cynog Dafis, the Member for Ceredigion and, with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, the first Green MP —although he was a Green-Plaid Cymru coalition MP.

[Joan Walley]

I cannot help pointing out that the former Member for Ceredigion served with great distinction on the Environmental Audit Committee.

[Hywel Williams]

Indeed. I was aware of that. He is a friend of mine and I think highly of him.

My party’s stance has always been that it is up to the people of Wales to decide on the sustainable use of its natural resources. As scarcity bites, the economic case for Wales exporting water is growing. If so, Wales should be compensated fairly and the benefits should go to the people of Wales.

There is a point which has not yet been made— the territorial significance for Wales of the current water companies. Labour in government, through the Government of Wales Act 2006, failed to act on that. Much of mid-Wales is served by Severn Trent Water. Part of north-east Wales is served by Dee Valley Water. As a consequence, perhaps, part of Herefordshire is served by Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. One of the aims of my party is to regularise that situation. The lines should be redrawn. That is something that I will talk about in Committee if I am fortunate enough to be appointed to it.

As for the current arrangements in Wales, to paraphrase L P Hartley, Wales is another country: they do things differently there. That is a slightly over-used phrase, but in Wales we have a different situation. We have a water company, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water, which is a third sector company, as I mentioned earlier, with a non-distributable profits model. The previous company, Hyder —or Hi-dere, as the BBC used to insist on calling it —was run on conventional commercial lines. Glas Cymru reinvests its profits in a better system and in lower prices. As I said, its current price rises are below inflation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

Over the spending review period as a whole, the investment will be bigger, and we will see the numbers climbing over the coming spending review period as well, by up to £400 million a year by 2021.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of bad debt, and rightly pointed out that some companies are better than others. We of course want all companies to aspire to do better. To return to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we now have a far more vocal and effective regulator than we have had for some time. On issues of bad debt, affordability and company transparency, which matters to many right hon. and hon. Members, the expectation on companies to deliver is now much greater. I want to make it clear that many companies are doing a good job, investing money and delivering for customers, but where there are problems, the regulator will tackle them. My right hon. Friend set out absolutely clearly in his letter to the companies his expectations for the industry. The Government are supporting the regulator to carry out the work that is necessary.

[Joan Walley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Rogerson]

I will give way for a final time.

[Joan Walley]

In the remaining six minutes, will the Minister say whether he is minded to consider that the regulator should have a duty in respect of sustainability as a primary function, which has been raised by many Members?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to consider that. The case for such a duty has been made by Members on both sides of the House. The clear gain that we want is for Ofwat to have an additional duty in respect of resilience, for all the reasons that we have given. We want to incentivise the water industry to have long-term solutions to the problems that face it, rather than moving from price review period to price review period. We want to encourage continued investment in solutions that involve retaining water for use, rather than abstraction-based solutions. We want to incentivise investment in the best environmental solutions.

Ofwat already has a duty in respect of sustainable development. We have received legal advice that, regardless of whether that is a primary duty, there is a duty on Ofwat to take sustainability into account. Were we to make that a primary duty, we would perhaps not be able to bring in the resilience duty that we want. We will consider that issue and I am sure we will return to it in Committee, because a number of hon. Members have said that they will raise it. At the moment, we think that there are dangers in elevating the sustainability duty above the resilience duty. If I can be convinced that there is a way to deliver both, I will be happy to listen, but I want to ensure that we have resilience.

A number of other detailed issues have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) spoke about park homes and I am meeting her this week to discuss the matter. I will be pleased if we can make progress on it, but there are issues with the way in which they take their water from an intermediary, as she pointed out. Canals were mentioned. We have discussed the Canal & River Trust on the Floor of the House in Question Time. I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and other hon. Members to discuss that issue.

I am grateful that we have had so much time to discuss the issues and to get them out in the open. We have talked about the need to keep water available and affordable, and to continue to improve the environment. We have also mentioned the uncertainties in our water supply and the pressures on it, such as unpredictable weather and the growing population. We have a responsibility to ensure that we use our water wisely, to protect it and to ensure that there is enough for future generations. That is why we are taking action now. I am grateful for the support of Members from all parts of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Water Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Water Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 December 2013.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Water Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or the Competition and Markets Authority; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Water Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the inclusion in sewerage licences of conditions requiring the payment of sums to the Water Services Regulation Authority,

(2) an extension of the cases in which a penalty may be imposed under section 22A of the Water Industry Act 1991,

(3) an extension of the cases in which a penalty may be imposed under section 111 of the Enterprise Act 2002 as applied by section 17M or 17Q of the Water Industry Act 1991,

(4) the charging of fees for providing copies of, or data comprising, all or part of the main river map for England,

(5) the conferring of powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring insurers to pay levies or make contributions for purposes relating to flood insurance, and

(6) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Natural Capital (England and Wales)

Joan Walley Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is absolutely right for Parliament to be debating the first annual state of natural capital report, and for the chair of the all-party group for GLOBE UK, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), to be leading the debate in Parliament. GLOBE has shown true leadership, both in the UK and internationally, in getting natural capital on to the agenda, and it is vital that the Government now take a lead. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this welcome debate. Given the way parliamentarians work, it is important that our constituents have an opportunity to have their voice, on how they protect nature, represented here in Parliament. For all those reasons, I value this debate.

As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) pointed out, there is a conundrum. The natural capital committee’s work is a centrepiece of the natural environment White Paper. The extent to which the NCC informs policy is a key test of the White Paper’s ability to truly achieve the step change in how we value nature as a society. As Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, a key issue for me is whether the Treasury is central to that process. I believe that it should be. The right hon. Lady set out how the NCC was established in May 2012 as an independent advisory body to Government, reporting to the economic affairs committee of the Cabinet Office, which is chaired by the Chancellor. In an ideal world, a Treasury Minister would be sitting side by side with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister to answer the debate, because this is a cross-cutting issue. We are intent on drawing to the Government’s attention that it is no good DEFRA having ownership of the agenda; it has to be reflected in each and every Department of Government. This is one challenge that Parliament faces.

[Caroline Lucas]

I completely agree with the direction in which the hon. Lady is going, but does she agree that one of the NCC’s crucial recommendations is the need for changes to the Treasury’s perhaps ironically named green book to allow decisions to take into account natural capital, even where robust valuations are not likely to be available? Does she agree that that is crucial? Unless the green book is amended in that way, with exactly the kind of integration she is talking about, economic and environmental concerns simply will not happen.

[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.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which the hon. Lady is the Chair. Does she agree on the importance of incorporating this discussion in the debate on green finance, on which we will be doing a report shortly? Does she also agree that it is pivotal that we link up with the Treasury, DEFRA and all other Departments, because this needs to be a joined-up process?

[Joan Walley]

I absolutely agree. Certainly on green finance, this needs to be embedded at the heart of not just the Treasury, but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. When the right hon. Member for Meriden, who was instrumental in setting up the NCC, gave evidence before our Committee, she absolutely understood the importance of the Treasury and Cabinet Office taking on this agenda. I do not know how closely she is watching how the Government are following through on her work, but it is vital that the Minister picks up those responsibilities, which were put on the drawing board when the NCC was established, and follows up on all of this.

The green book, which is under review, provides a good starting point for the cost-benefit analysis, but it does not include natural capital within its cost-benefit guidance, and it is important that capital stocks, including natural capital, be included in the review as potential constraints alongside the social cost-benefit analysis. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury on that? I know that the Woodland Trust, in particular, shares our view.

The NCC contains many recommendations. As GLOBE said, one of the key questions is: what should the Government be doing? I would like them to commit to incorporating the value of natural capital in international accounting and policy-making processes by 2020 at the very latest. Will the Minister comment? In that regard, the work of the Office for National Statistics is critical, and certainly my Select Committee will be taking evidence on that and looking to see what progress is being made.

It is not just about what we do nationally, however; it is about what happens internationally, as we heard just now. The Government need to take up the NCC’s report at the international level. I think of the work on the sustainable development goals, which, as we heard from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, followed the Rio+20 conference in Brazil last summer. Securing appropriate recognition of natural capital accounting within the United Nations is important. As we have heard, so far the post-2015 high-level panel has emphasised the importance of the sustainable management of natural resource assets with regard to poverty eradication. It is important, however, that the Government go one step further. As the Government take the sustainable development goals further, will the Minister ensure that all capital accounting, including of the natural environment, is addressed as a specific goal?

Progress at the UN can be made only if we make corresponding progress nationally, and here I wish to flag up the role of business, because this is not just about what the Government do; as many Members have said, it is about what business does as well, and many businesses accept that the global economy is entering a new era.

The Prince’s Charities “Accounting for Sustainability” report was prepared in the run-up to the Rio conference and made a positive impact on the discussions that took place there the summer before last. In it, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said:

“There was a time when we could say that there was either a complete lack of knowledge, or at least room for doubt, about the consequences for our planet of our actions. That time has gone. We now know all too clearly what we are actually doing and that we need to do something about it urgently. Better accounting must be part of that process.”

In that report, and in the report that we are debating this evening, the business case is made for the integration of environmental and social information. Chief finance officers across industry are recognising that ethical breaches can collapse a company in no time. Work already under way by leading companies is reinforcing the natural capital committee’s recommendation for more work with leading companies’ accounting bodies, landowners and managers to develop and test guidance on best practice in corporate natural accounting. Will the Minister tell us how the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is dealing with those issues?

From the perspective of the Environmental Audit Committee, given our current inquiry into fossil fuel subsidies, it is pertinent that the Government should pay particular attention to the NCC’s recommendation for a review of the extent to which natural capital is being effectively priced and, in particular, for an examination of the scope for reducing perverse subsidies. What dialogue is the Minister having with the Department of Energy and Climate Change on that issue?

The ways in which the Government take up the initial recommendations will depend entirely on the pressure that exists at local level. Whatever the Government do will go further if there is support for their actions locally. I commend a recent report from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that was launched here in Parliament last week. It sought to find out how connected to nature the children of the UK were, in an innovative three-year research project to establish a clear definition of connection to nature and, more importantly, a method for measuring it. The research highlights a wide range of benefits for children, society and the environment.

We all accept that nature is in trouble. Indeed, we had a debate in Westminster Hall last week on wildlife crime. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) pointed out that the more we understand about wildlife, the better we can value and protect it. So it matters a great deal if we, as a nation, do not understand how much trouble nature is in. With 60% of our species in decline, the protection of wildlife must begin at home, in our childhood. The research study examined a representative sample of young people. In it, the desirable score relating to being in touch with nature was 1.5, but that score was achieved by only 21% of children. There were big differences between boys and girls, between different parts of the country and, in particular, between urban and rural areas.

I happen to think that this matter needs to be addressed by the Government. We urgently need to amend our education legislation to make the teaching of sustainable development a duty. Many people agree with me on that, including educationists and practitioners who run field centres. The national curriculum can no longer overlook an understanding of the natural world. If the Government were to take on board that sentiment, it would chime with the direction of travel of the natural capital committee’s recommendations, and I ask the Minister to consider this possibility and to take up the matter with Ministers in the Department for Education.

Finally, there is a need for a long-term policy framework that supports and incentivises organisations, including financial institutions, to value and report on natural capital. Arguably, however, the committee’s report is a statement of intent rather than a clearly defined route map. At this stage, it is much more about generalities and intentions than about clear recommendations. As the committee moves on from its first report, it needs to be much more direct and much more forward, and it needs to build on its clear set of principles by making specific recommendations—advice on offsetting, for example.

When the Government come to review the natural capital committee in 2014, I hope that they will take some of those issues on board. The natural environment White Paper sets out an ambitious vision for nature and our natural capital assets. Genuinely embedding the value of natural capital into the fabric of economic decision-making is crucial to achieving that vision. The Government must now build on the work of the natural capital committee.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on securing this evening’s debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) for speaking so knowledgeably about this issue; she was responsible for seeing much of what we are discussing tonight come to fruition.

The coalition agreement stated:

“The Government believes that we need to protect the environment for future generations, make our economy more environmentally sustainable, and improve our quality of life and well-being.”

Following on from that, the Government published the White Paper, “The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature”, a recommendation from which led to the setting up of the natural capital committee to provide independent advice to the Government on these important matters.

It was done against the background of a previous century in which the world population had increased by 50%; there was a fortyfold increase in industrial output; and an increase of 16 times in the amount of energy used, greatly increasing emissions from sulphur and carbon. The natural capital was obviously put at risk by such a great increase in activity, and no policies were in place to ensure that it could be sustained and maintained.

Let me draw a comparison between us getting to grips with the concept of natural capital now and what happened at the first Rio conference when the issue of sustainability was first put forward. It was difficult at that time to get people to understand what was really meant by that concept, and I think we are still wrestling a little with it at the moment. Sometimes the interpretation of sustainability is used to promote a particular argument or project that we might wish to advance.

I was in a little chapel in Bryn Pont in Pontfaen in my constituency last night, where the Breconshire young farmers were having their harvest festival. They took the service themselves, being wonderfully able people. As I listened, I was thinking that, because of their role in land management and land ownership, they will be the people on whom much of this responsibility will fall. I wondered how they would grasp this concept of natural capital.

I am sure that the people in the committee who wrote the report are very able and that they followed fully the academic rigour and, indeed, the financial accuracy necessary for such reports. However, I think that the committee has a little way to go when it comes to explaining the subject to other people. It will be advising the Government on policy, but unless people understand and can align themselves with that policy, it will be extraordinarily difficult for them to deal with it. For example, the report offers the following:

“Definition of natural capital asset: Define the component of natural capital under consideration, the temporal and spatial scales being considered and the relationship between the natural capital asset and the services it provides, directly or in conjunction with other assets”.

I am not sure how that can be translated into user-friendly language. What I am sure of is that a great deal of work will be required to enable people to associate themselves with the project.

We have been given an example of the way in which natural capital can be used to assess the effect of a particular development, and then to offset it by replicating an environment or ecosystem that may have been damaged by that development. I think that the concept has a great deal to offer. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is particularly interested in using offsetting to allow economic development to take place in areas where it has been problematic in the past, and I attended a debate in Westminster Hall during which the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—who is responsible for planning—spoke about developments in national parks and how they could be facilitated. However, I think that we must approach the process with considerable caution, because it is sometimes almost impossible to replicate ecosystems that have been damaged by development. It may work in some instances, but in others the environment will be so pristine that it will be impossible to replicate it elsewhere.

Mention has been made of the value of children and young people who have experience of the countryside and take part in activities there. On Saturday night I attended the first showing in Wales of a film called “Project Wild Thing”, which explained how we could encourage young people and give them opportunities to make the most of their experience in the countryside. There is also a National Trust programme entitled “50 things to do before you are 11¾”. I shall be sending a copy to my grandson, who has already undertaken one or two of the recommended activities. If we ensure that our natural capital can be maintained, it will greatly benefit the development and health of our children.

[Joan Walley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for all Members to do their utmost to arrange screenings of “Project Wild Thing”, which was launched by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the House of Commons last week?

[Roger Williams]

I certainly do. It is a very inspiring film. People will interpret it in many different ways, but I am sure that every way in which it is interpreted, and implemented, will enable children to benefit from it.

I think that the development of the concept of natural capital will be of considerable use to the Government when they are setting policy. However, one Member said that while it was some use if implemented nationally, it would be of greater use if implemented internationally.

Some 12 of the 13 recommendations in the Committee’s first report are process recommendations—they are about the way this should be approached—but the 13th recommendation is about agriculture. It recommends that the common agricultural policy should be radically reformed and that as much of the pillar 1 money as possible should be moved to pillar 2. I think that many of us would agree with that, but it depends on what the pillar 2 projects are. Also, it would be entirely inappropriate for policies to be implemented in this country while we have a single market that would put our farmers at a disadvantage to those on the continent.

There is a graph in the report showing the wheat yields in this country. They have increased from about 1 tonne an acre to about 3 tonnes or more. Sadly, however— and chillingly in some respects—there have been reductions in wheat yields in this country in the last two years. For those two years we will be net importers of wheat, whereas we have been a wheat exporter in the past.

We talk about farmers delivering public services. I think the greatest service the farming community can deliver is a sustainable supply of food at an affordable price. There is therefore a balance to be struck between food being produced by farming and the protection of the environment.

This concept will be very useful and very informative for the Government in delivering their policies, but we need to show that the public understand the concept as well, and are able to engage with it.

--- 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Walley Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of his constituents about this site. I have looked into the issue, am aware of it and discuss it with the Environment Agency. If he and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington wish to meet me to discuss it, I will be happy to do so.

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

Does the Minister share the concern of Stoke-on-Trent boat club, and the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs all over the country, about DEFRA’s deferment of the decision to stop Environment Agency navigation waters going over to the Canal and River Trust? Will he urgently review that situation and raise it with the Treasury?

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady has obviously been concerned about these matters for some time. I would be happy to hear more from her about the details and perhaps we could take the matter forward on that basis.