Neonicotinoids on Crops

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ben Howlett]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. This is an international problem and it needs to be looked into at a European Union level as well. I understand the Government are doing so.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The issue that worries me and many of my constituents—and, I suspect, others around the country—is the decline of the bee population. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has pointed out there is not a single cause for the decline. Does he agree that we need a varied response from the Government that covers a number of issues in order to crack the real problem?

Badger Culls (Assessment)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I welcome the opportunity to respond to today’s debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions, which have covered a wide range of issues.

This year’s culls finished as planned after six weeks, and we are now analysing the data collected over that period. The data are being independently audited in the same way as last year’s. When the analysis is complete, the outcomes of this year’s cull will be published, so I will focus on our approach to collecting the data and assessing populations this year—issues to which many hon. Members have alluded. That is directly relevant to this debate.

We published our approach to monitoring before the culls started, and I confirm that we carried out the planned number of field observations and far more than the planned number of post-mortem examinations—figures that were both set last year. A lot of information has been collected. The processes used for collecting data are also currently subject to independent audit. We are taking the same approach as last year to ensure that our data are robust.

In August 2014 we published a detailed document setting out our precise methodology, “Setting the minimum and maximum numbers for Year 2 of the badger cull”, and before the cull started we published that guidance to help Natural England set this year’s minimum and maximum numbers. We set out clearly how this year’s numbers were derived for each area, and the paper describes in great detail—it runs to 34 pages—the basis of the estimates and any assumptions made. The approach was agreed by the chief scientific adviser. Estimating wildlife populations is subject to uncertainty, as the independent expert panel acknowledged in its report last year. It is important that we use all valid sources of information, giving particular weight to up-to-date evidence about numbers of active setts, based on repeated observations across the whole cull area.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the somewhat unscientific outburst by Professor Rosie Woodroffe. I like Rosie Woodroffe—she hails from Cornwall and even went to the same school as my sister—but she needs to compare the approach taken in the randomised badger culling trials with the methodology we have used this year. The reality is that there was no hair-trapping at all in the RBCTs, on which all our assumptions in the fight against this disease are based. In fact, no assessment of the badger population was made at the start of the culls. Instead, once four years of culling were finished, there was a retrospective attempt to estimate what the population might have been at the start—to back-calculate what the populations were. People have talked about the methodology that we adopted being crude, but how is that for crude? The RBCTs did not even assess the population before they started, and then they retrospectively tried to estimate what the population was.

Compare that with the approach we took this year, which is set out in great detail on pages 10 and 11 of the guidance. We took the end point of the population last year as this year’s starting point. We followed the IEP’s advice and used the cull sample matching method to try to predict the end population after last year’s culls. We then used a number of models, which are set out in detail, to take account of population growth. Those models are largely rooted in long-standing population measurements in places such as Woodchester park over many years—there are 20 years of data—to establish how populations change over a given winter. At the end of that process, as with the RBCT, which is all the IEP had to go on, we finally submitted the population to method 4, which is where one looks at the real activity on the ground. There were sett surveys and sett sticking. We have looked at the latrines and measured actual activity in badger setts. That is a kind of reality check, to check whether our data models are giving the right information.

The shadow Secretary of State highlighted the fact that different approaches were taken in Somerset and Gloucester, and asked why. We set that out in great detail on pages 12 and 13 of the guidance. In Gloucester, there was greater consistency in what the models were telling us about the population, so it was easier to meet that condition. In Somerset there was a conflict between some of the models, so it went with the most reliable model, which used real data in real time on real activity in setts.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What progress has the Minister made with farmers on trying to find ways to improve biosecurity so that there is less contact between badgers and cattle?

[George Eustice]

We are making progress. In fact, we have been talking to an accreditation organisation about whether we could get farmers to sign up to a package of measures to improve biosecurity, including keeping badgers away from their farmyards, for example, to try to reduce the spread of the disease.

There is a misunderstanding about the IEP. Last year, the IEP was not out in the field in the middle of the night with binoculars to observe the culls. That was done by Natural England staff last year, and they did it again this year in the same way. The IEP did not carry out the post-mortems on badger carcasses last year. It was done by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, both last year and this year. The IEP had a one-off role last year in informing us of how we should treat the raw data that came from AHVLA and Natural England. The IEP was not in the field; it was a desktop exercise. The IEP completed its work, and we do not need to repeat it this year. Do we need the British Ecological Society to repeat what the IEP did last year? No, we do not, because that job was done and completed last year, and this year we have a process that will be audited. If the British Ecological Society has an opinion, it can express a view on this very detailed, 34-page report. People like Professor Woodroffe say that they do not agree with the report, but they have yet to explain why.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

John Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be taking part in this debate. Like other Members, I would like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). He and the colleagues who have supported him so well have taken us into a most important debate. Clearly this matter strikes a chord across the country. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) correctly, about 125,000 people have now put their names to the e-petition. I am very pleased to say that my family’s names are proudly inscribed on it. We are a house of dog lovers. We can boast three Great Danes and a disgracefully overfed Labrador—well, a fat Labrador, which might not be uncommon in other Members’ households. My wife has gone to the trouble of rescuing three donkeys—now five—from various distressed situations in Britain and Europe. Their only function seems to be to ensure that we keep a very organic way of gardening under way at home. There are many humorous stories that we could all tell about our experiences of the pets in our families. A love of animals is deep in the psyche of the British people. We would do well to respect that and, more importantly, to respond to it in any way that we can.

I think that we can all agree that pre-eminent among the 125,000 people is Marc Abraham. His Pup Aid programme has touched the consciences of many people throughout our constituencies. One such person in my constituency is Joy Yeates, who has written to me unremittingly on this topic and who wanted to ensure that I was here today to contribute. I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just want to read a short excerpt from the letter that she sent me most recently:

“Puppies need more than a cage, food and drink, as their emotional needs cannot possibly be met in this crucial period of development.”

I am sure that we all utterly agree with that. She continued:

“For that reason, Pup Aid is seeking a ban on the sale of puppies in pet shops where the mother is not present.”

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I just want the hon. Gentleman to know that many people in Wokingham entirely echo his sentiments and those of his constituent. She has put it extremely well.

[Mr Robinson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is very welcome, coming as it does from such a distinguished intellectual quarter of the Conservative party. It was up to his usual high intellectual standard.

Joy Yeates then urged me to attend this debate. I am pleased to be here and to give the point of view of those who want practical steps to be taken.

Although he is not present, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has been foremost in saying that a huge strength of organisations are in support of us here. There have been a string of legislative attempts to tackle different aspects of the problem. Those have all been made with the best of intentions. Those of us who took part in the debates on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 know that. I am pleased to say that I had a role in that. It is not easy to legislate in this area, and I caution against early legislation—certainly primary legislation. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who will speak for the Opposition today—although there is no party divide on this issue—agrees with me about that entirely.

There is a lot that we could do by looking at the series of legislation and guidance, and at the responsibilities as they are currently defined within local government. We could bring together and simplify the plethora of different and sometimes not wholly complementary sets of guidance and regulations to ensure that we know who is responsible for pursuing each aspect of the problem.

I do not expect the Minister to be able to say much about my next point. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South insisted that he did not want to get distracted by the internet, but we have to face the fact that if we succeed in bringing breeding under control, the internet will become the problem. My experience, in both north Wales and Clacton, was that the breeders were very responsible. Twelve weeks was the minimum period for which the puppies stayed with their mothers, so those were very good breeders. However, if we manage to do all that we are setting out to do, the internet will still be there and it will become ever more attractive as the other sources of puppies and so on are stopped. If the internet is as viral as I expect, in the sense that it attracts so much attention and demand—I hope that it will not be—we will have to find ways of dealing with it. That might mean having some mandatory restrictions on websites. I will leave that with the Minister, as well as the other problems.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister a coherent, clear-cut set of proposals that have been worked on, which will deal with the problem in a practical and sensible way, with minimal additional fuss and bother in terms of paperwork from the Government. I am very pleased to have taken part. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Managing Flood Risk

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

If I could make a little progress first, I will then take interventions.

There are a number of maintenance activities which the Environment Agency groups into four main areas. The first is operations: inspecting assets, providing utilities, and operating flood barriers and pumping stations. Some of those have passed from internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency, and have not been maintained since 2004-05. It is important to put that on the record.

The second maintenance activity is conveyance. The Committee was shocked to learn that only £30 million is spent each year in the whole of England and Wales on controlling aquatic weed, dredging, clearing screens and removing obstructions from rivers. We will never know whether regular maintenance and dredging on the Somerset levels by the IDBs or the Environment Agency would have prevented the traumatic flooding we have seen since last autumn and right through the winter.

The third activity is maintaining flood defences and structures, including carrying out inspections and minor repairs, managing grass, trees and bushes and controlling the populations of burrowing animals on flood embankments. My argument is that under the previous Government much of the regular maintenance work was simply not done by the Environment Agency because its political masters, the Government, said not to do it because of birds nesting. I argue that IDBs work with nature and dredge only at the right times of year.

The fourth activity is mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, control and automation—MEICA—meaning carrying out minor repairs to, and replacement of, pumps and tidal barriers.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many places, including Wokingham, experienced flooding because essential maintenance work on ditches, culverts, drains and small rivers, which are relatively low-budget items, had not been undertaken by the Environment Agency? In the previous year the Environment Agency spent £1.2 billion overall and massively increased its staff, but it did not have a penny to protect the people of Wokingham from the floods that have now hit them. Is it not a question of how we spend the Environment Agency’s budget?

[Miss McIntosh]

My right hon. Friend makes my case for me.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Last month in Brighton and Hove, local emergency services, utilities, the city council and other stakeholders worked together with admirable determination to help the residents who were at significant risk of groundwater and surface water flooding.

It has become clear that the overall pot of money for which local authorities have to bid for flood protection projects is far from adequate. It would help if the process for applying for funds were simplified. I would like to know whether Ministers are considering improvements in that area. This winter’s events have also shown that we need long-term policies and investment to address all types of flooding, including not only coastal and river flooding, but groundwater and surface water flooding.

Despite the limited increase in investment in flood defences, funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will still be about £1.4 billion behind what the Environment Agency says it will need between 2015 and 2021 just to stop the flood risk getting even worse. It is clear that, as well as reversing the cuts to the Environment Agency budget and investing properly in flood defences, we must factor in climate change projections on the future cost of extreme weather. As the current approach ignores that, the Committee on Climate Change warned recently that the spending plans would result in about 250,000 more households becoming exposed to a significant risk of flooding by 2035.

Many hon. Members have raised the cost-benefit ratio rule. Currently, projects have to deliver an 8:1 return on investment. Why is that the case, when HS2 must deliver only a 2:1 return? Decent investment would reduce the average rate of return, but it would also reduce the overall amount of flood damage. Will the Government review that rule to help local authorities invest in the flood protection that they know is required?

At the very least, we need a commitment that spending on flood protection will be increased in line with the expert recommendations of the Environment Agency and the Committee on Climate Change. In considering how to fund that, a good place to start would be to redirect just some of the billions of pounds of subsidies and tax breaks that go the fossil fuel industry.

Last week, I received a report from the Sussex Wildlife Trust that sets out an evidence-based approach to flood protection that was produced by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, which is made up of independent and professional people who are experts in their field. The report reinforces a key lesson that we need to learn from the recent floods: not only that our spending on flood protection is shockingly inadequate and that we must not have Ministers who deny the link between the burning of fossil fuels, man-made climate change, extreme weather and enormous threats to our society—threats that the Government are exacerbating through their inequitable and unscientific climate targets and their obsession with helping big energy companies to extract every last drop of oil and gas that is out there—but, crucially, that there must be a fundamental shift towards seeking to work with nature, rather than against it. Not only would such an approach benefit wildlife and nature, but it is the best way to reduce our vulnerability to flooding and extreme weather events and to increase our resilience.

[Mr Redwood]

On that point, is the hon. Lady a supporter of the Environment Agency’s policy in the Somerset levels over recent years of not dredging on the grounds that it might damage habitats?

[Caroline Lucas]

Dredging is often pulled out of the hat as if it were a silver bullet. Dredging can have a positive effect if it is done in certain places at certain times. In other places, it does not have a positive effect. In the Somerset levels, it could have been done a little earlier, but it certainly would not have massively reduced what we are seeing now. We need a much more holistic response, which is what Sussex Wildlife Trust is talking about.

Flooding (Somerset)

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are spending £2.4 billion, which is more than the previous Government, over this spending round. On local brooks—this picks up earlier questions—we set in train seven pilots last year to see whether some low-risk waterways could be cleared by local farmers or local landowners, with the collaboration of the Environment Agency, so that we get more work done on low-risk areas.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State call in the chairman of the Environment Agency and ask why, from a budget of £1,200 million last year, it spent only £20 million on clearing watercourses? Will he get across to the chairman that we need new budget priorities—not just in Somerset, which is the subject of the urgent question, but in places such as mine—to clear watercourses so that people do not have wet rooms?

[Mr Paterson]

As I have said, I have great confidence in what the Environment Agency, led by the chairman and by the chief executive, has delivered in protecting 1.1 million properties. However, as my right hon. Friend says, we can always do better. One thing I am looking at is getting more low-risk water clearance work done locally, with local councils being more involved, and with local agencies and more IDBs. This is very much a team effort.

Flooding

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Gentleman reports on an unfortunate case. The appropriate measure is for him to send the details to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, and we will take the matter up with the Environment Agency.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that a number of small schemes to improve the capacity of ditches, culverts and streams could make a lot of difference? My constituency has had huge development on flood plain, and every time we have these situations we always get too many properties flooded because of defective maintenance or because the ditches and culverts are not big enough.

[Mr Paterson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. A big difference can be made by micro-management of micro-problems, such as the one cited in the previous question. Not everything can be done by central Government, national institutions, local councils or even parish councils. In rural areas, we are setting up pilots to allow local landowners the right on the ground to maintain low-risk areas and to clear out small rivers.

Water Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

I wish to consider new clause 3 and amendment 9, which seek to address legislation already on the statute books in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I remind the House that the cost of bad debt to each household in England is approximately £15 per annum, and in times of great hardship and a period of austerity, which the Government are dealing with through the actions we continue to take, it is incumbent on the Government to consider every opportunity to defray the costs to each household in that regard.

New clause 3 seeks to provide benefits information by allowing the Secretary of State to regulate to

“make provision about the disclosure of benefits information about occupiers”

to water and sewerage companies in connection with the revised part of the Water Industry Act 1991. It goes on to state that

“‘benefits information’ means information which is held for benefit entitlement purposes by the Department for Work and Pensions.”

Amendment 9 would make the consequential change to the current clause 80, to allow the provision of benefits information. I sat where the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is currently sitting and followed the passage of the Flood and Water Management Bill as closely as he is following the passage of this Bill. I have been very taken with the idea of trying to reduce bad debt in this way. Recently, I was most fortunate to receive a written answer from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who helpfully told me that at present the legislation does not permit the transfer and provision of benefits information by the Department for Work and Pensions in the way I wish. He did not say it could not be done; he said only that the current law does not permit it. We are where we are.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

To help the House, will my hon. Friend explain what kind of information she would like to see transferred and how it would help?

[Miss McIntosh]

I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear with me as I take the House through it.

In the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on the draft Bill, we reiterated our previous recommendations that the Department should implement without delay the existing provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 on bad debt, to which I have referred. In our view, it is unacceptable for honest customers to be forced to subsidise those who can pay but refuse to pay their water bills. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, the specific provision is section 45 of the 2010 Act, which introduces new section 144C to the Water Industry Act 1991. That is what we propose in new clause 3, which would require landlords to arrange for information on their tenants to be provided to water companies.

Instead of implementing the existing bad debt provisions, the Government currently rely on a voluntary approach, whereby landlords share information on tenants on an online database set up by the water companies. Before I go further on the voluntary approach, it might be helpful to ask my hon. Friend the Minister this question: what is to prevent a customer who happens to be a tenant from marking on their electricity bill the fact that they have no problem with it being made known to the electricity company and the Department for Work and Pensions, whichever works best, that they are in receipt of benefits? The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was fortunate to enjoy the company of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for a time. I am sure he remembers our exchange, but the Committee has great difficulty in understanding what the problem is for the Government—either the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—in permitting that flow of information.

The House will recall the tragic case of an elderly couple who sadly passed away because they could not afford to pay their utility bills for heating. No one had informed the electricity company of that fact. I believe that what is good for electricity companies—in law, such information can be provided to those utility companies —should be equally good for the water companies, which are also utility companies. They should have access to the same information.

A close reading of proceedings in Committee shows that Water UK acknowledged the new database for landlords and tenants, but claimed that

“experience has shown that a voluntary approach simply does not work.”––[Official Report, Water Public Bill Committee, 3 December 2013; c. 15, Q19.]

It gave the example of Northumbrian Water. It has had an easy-to-use website for landlords to provide information for two and a half years, yet only 7% of all rented properties have been registered. That is a problem and this is a matter of some urgency. The Government need to press ahead—the House would support that.

In Committee, the Opposition tabled a new clause that would have meant landlords providing contact details of their tenants to the water companies, but it was voted down. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee produced a report on the water White Paper—we have worked hard on the issue and I hope we have made a positive contribution. My hon. Friend the Minister nods because he, too, was a member of the Committee when we adopted the report. I find myself in good company this evening. The report recommended that DEFRA work with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that all means-tested benefits claimants are given the option to consent to the sharing of their data with their water company for the purposes of help with affordability issues.

I and hon. Members who have put their names to new clause 3—a number are members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—believe that there is a difference between electricity and gas bills and water bills. If people do not pay their heating bill, their supply can be cut off, whereas if people do not pay their water bill, the water company is simply not permitted to turn off the supply of clean water going in or prevent waste water—sewage—going out, for reasons of hygiene and good health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer). How would it help to know the name of the tenant who has done a bunk, moved somewhere else and not given a forwarding address and who has no intention of paying the bill? Would the water companies not need investigatory powers to track down the tenant?

[Thomas Docherty]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his knowledge, but we are clear that, as they themselves accept, it is the water companies who would have to do the legwork; no additional burden would be placed on the landlord, as it would be for the water companies to contact householders, and obviously they would have a list of new tenants. I will use the example of the electoral roll: candidates, parliamentarians and political parties receive a list of those who are new on the register, and we then contact them to welcome them to the area. When the name of somebody who disappears from one property appears at a different property, it would not be beyond the wit of a water company to work out who they were. In Committee, the Government’s key objection seemed to be that it would place an unfair burden on landlords, so we are keen to stress that, as the Minister will recall from his time on the Select Committee, it would place an additional burden not on the landlord, but on the water companies. The companies themselves want this power. To reiterate, we are absolutely clear that those who can pay should pay, so why the opposition from the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

I want to make some brief comments that were too long for an intervention, particularly about new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh). I sincerely hope that, in summing up, the Minister will reflect on today’s debate, which has shown recognition across the House that consumers and our constituents are finding it very difficult to pay their household bills because of pressure on the household budget. It is worth saying that the Government recognise that challenge and are doing their best to assist, not least by turning around the failing economy that they inherited. Needless to say, a section of society will find it very challenging to pay their utility bills, and the Government have an obligation to try to assist and support them.

There is another group of people who are unwilling to pay, as a result of a frankly malicious intent to avoid paying the bill that is due to be paid. It is vital that the water companies have the power to decide which cases fit into which categories. Those who are clearly unable to pay should be able to receive assistance, support and sympathy from the water companies. New clause 3 goes some way towards assisting the water companies to identify people within the benefit and welfare support system, who may be in need of extra assistance.

I am somewhat sympathetic to new clause 8, too, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and is designed to ensure that water companies put the neediest customers on “the lowest possible tariff”. Those who find themselves under pressure in the most challenging of circumstances are often those least able to identify from their bills which is the correct tariff for them to be on and least able to challenge the water companies to put them on a better tariff, allowing them to afford to pay their household bills. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to that, if he is minded to do so.

Finally, I support those who have said it is difficult to understand why the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are unable or unwilling to supply the necessary data to the water companies. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will be able to shed some light on those thoughts.

[Mr Redwood]

I hope that the Government will look at the issue of unpaid bills. Colleagues of all parties are right to draw attention to the problem—one of the many sources of excess cost in the water industry, which it would be good to reduce or eliminate. It is undoubtedly the case that we pay dearly for our main utility provision in this country, and I fear that the main reason why water bills are high and will stay high is that there is no competition. It is a great pity that this Bill will not introduce proper competition into water as into other areas, as it would make a lot of difference. The amendments are designed to deal with the situation of having regional monopolies that are in many cases unresponsive and have high cost structures. Then there is the particular problem of customers deciding—quite wilfully, when some of them are perfectly capable of paying—not to pay their bills. Clearly, more needs to be done on that.

There is some good in all the amendments before us this evening, but I am not persuaded that they take the trick. It might be helpful to know who the tenant was, but if the tenant cannot be traced to where they have gone, it will be impossible to get them to pay. It might be useful to know something more about the benefits and financial circumstances of individuals, although there are issues of privacy and the handling of data that could cause difficulties, but that then fails to enable us to come down hard enough on the people who can afford to pay, which is the real issue.

[Thomas Docherty]

Given that it is the water industry itself that is pressing for this power relating to landlord information and given that it is prepared to bear the burden of tracking people down, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that such a scheme is clearly workable?

[Mr Redwood]

It may or may not be. I do not have a very high opinion of the success of the water industry in these areas, and it may not be the best judge, but I accept that this is one of the best points in the hon. Gentleman’s case, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to it.

As I say, the amendments and new clauses are all well intentioned and, if passed, they might not make the situation worse and in some cases might even make it a little better. I hope, however, that the Minister, working with the water industry, can come up with something better because there is a serious issue here. A lot of money is owed to the water industry that people could afford to pay, but the matter is not being pressed.

Water Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his question. I shall come on to that in a minute, but we have had exhaustive and extensive discussions with the ABI to ensure that the statement of principles is succeeded by a new regime, on which I shall elaborate in a few minutes.

The main focus of the Bill is reform of the water industry. Reform will provide more choice for non-household customers and bring new entrants into the market. It will use the power of competition to drive efficiency, innovation and benefits to the environment.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As somebody who strongly welcomes the introduction of competition, why will not the Secretary of State allow competition for everybody? If it is really a natural monopoly, nothing will happen and no harm will be done, but if it is not, we could all get the benefit of competition with lower prices and the quality of water we want.

[Mr Paterson]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I have total sympathy with that position. I am quite clear that as an aspiration universal competition is worth while. Our problem is that we want to take the first step and take the wholesale route, which will bring immediate benefits and real efficiencies to major businesses, but it is hard to move down to a household level, where the gains are much smaller because of the narrow margins, until we have universal metering. At the moment, metering is at about 40% and we need to move closer to universal metering before we can reach the position with which he and I have much sympathy.

Privatisation of the UK water industry has seen the sector attract £116 billion in low-cost investment, enabling our infrastructure to be upgraded and environmental standards to be improved. I saw that for myself when I visited Northumbrian Water’s waste treatment site in Howdon. Its investment in anaerobic digestion is enabling it to process 500,000 tonnes of sewage every day that was previously dumped untreated in the North sea.

Our rivers are now cleaner than they have been for decades. Rivers that were previously classified as sterile or biologically dead are now supporting otters and salmon. A substantial programme of investment has also led to more than 82% of our bathing waters meeting the highest EU standard this year. That is a great example of improving the environment and growing the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

Well, water lands on the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the Welsh aspect of the Bill, and I think that he knows that the Bill’s competition elements will not apply to customers in Wales.

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way once again—we are teasing out important points. Does he agree that there are quite a lot of rising water tables under the big towns and cities of this country, because they used to be tapped but no longer are? Is not that a good source of new water that competition could deploy?

[Mr Paterson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We used to have heavy industries in our cities that used large amounts of water, as I know well, having worked on Merseyside for 25 years. Merseyrail has had problems with water because so many of the extractive industries have gone. There is no problem with the volume of water; it is about getting it to the right place at the right time and by the right means. That is what I hope the Bill will facilitate.

Our reforms will increase water supplies by making it more attractive for landowners to develop new sources of water, or for innovative businesses to treat and dispose of waste water. Let me take a hypothetical example. If a brewery with its own borehole has spare capacity, it might be able to supply its pubs in the area more cheaply than they could be supplied by the local water company. The brewery could put its spare water into the water company’s supply system or work with a retailer providing broader services to those businesses.

We also want to make it easier for our farmers and land managers to develop new sources of water, such as on-farm reservoirs, and to hold water back. For example, a farmer with an on-site reservoir that more than meets the farm’s water needs could make an arrangement with either a licensee or the incumbent water company to enable it to put water into the supply system. The water could be supplied regularly or only at times of high demand. Either way, the farmer would have a new product that he could sell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be making a second speech. The previous Government were the only Government to see water bills cut during their time in office. We need to see a determination in the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that Ofwat has the proper powers to deal with water companies. He ought to remember, even if he is technically in favour—

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will finish dealing with the Secretary of State’s point before I give way to anybody else. He needs to ensure that Ofwat has the power to deal with water companies that have a captive market. Even if he gets to increasing competition and extending it to householders, as he said himself, that will not happen for some time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I have some sympathy with the first part of the hon. Lady’s intervention, but perhaps less so in practical terms with her latter point.

[Mr Redwood]

I am interested in the Opposition’s argument. What reduction in bills could the extra powers that the hon. Lady wants the regulator to have produce for the average consumer, and how much should companies put into helping those who have a problem with affordability?

[Maria Eagle]

I will say a little more about what extra powers I think the regulator should have, and perhaps at that point I will deal with some of the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Opposition will seek to amend the Government’s legislation and address its central weakness, which is the lack of measures to tackle the contribution that rising water bills are having on household budgets. First, we will seek to grant Ofwat more wide-ranging powers to reopen price reviews between the current five-year periods. In his answer to me last Thursday the Secretary of State said:

“I have written to water companies to call on them to consider the pressure on household incomes when making future bill decisions and, in particular, to consider whether they need to apply the full price increases next year allowed for in the 2009 price review.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1350.]

However, it should not be for water companies simply to “consider” limiting price rises; the regulator needs much greater powers of intervention when those companies are making far more than anticipated at the time of the review.

Water Industry

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for more reservoirs. Reservoirs are not only important for water storage; they are important places for the angling community. Many hon. Members here are passionate anglers who enjoy fishing, and reservoirs provide an opportunity for that pursuit.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is going to talk about the need for competition to provide better quality and low prices, but why does he think that there is a natural monopoly? Surely anyone, under a suitably liberated regime, could build a reservoir or drill a borehole and provide water to the customer through a piped system.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The planning system obviously means that such things take time. It is certainly important to have more of a national planning framework, which has been discussed by some and is worth considering. The view of water professionals is that competition is important but, in terms of customer service, it does not necessarily reduce costs because the infrastructure represents about 90% of the cost base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

God knows; it would depend on when, if the hon. Gentleman sees what I mean.

The bulk of the reservoir capacity and the pipework was provided when big cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds and the Metropolitan Water Board in London were trying to look after the interests of the people of their areas. They created the reservoirs and laid the pipes.

During the arguments about the privatisation of the water industry, I received a letter in beautiful copperplate handwriting from an ancient ex-councillor in Sheffield. He said, “All the people at Yorkshire Water are doing is collecting water in reservoirs we built and sending it along pipes we laid. I speak as the former chairman of the water committee in Sheffield.” He pointed out that while the chief executive of Yorkshire Water was getting several hundred thousand pounds a year, when he had been responsible for it he had been paid “nowt” and the job had been done properly, whereas it had not been done properly ever since.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the pipe network that the nationalised industry put in was riddled with holes by the time the private sector took over? More than 25% of the water was being lost en route and the private sector has been renewing the pipes.

[Frank Dobson]

That is certainly true. Until 1995, Ministers from all parties accepted the statement by the water industry that the bulk of the water that leaked out of the system leaked out of customers’ pipes. It took a lot of effort from me and somebody who was working for me at the time to finally reveal that that was nothing short of a lie. It was not that the Ministers were lying; they were being provided with lies by the water industry. I have had the figure changed into fashionable litres now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

It is no good my saying that the previous Government’s record was as good as it ought to have been—I will not pretend that it was.

Another thing is that, over the years, charges for water have risen at twice the average of price rises for everything else. There can be no possible justification for that. What sickens customers are the water industry’s byzantine financial arrangements and how it is an outpost of the tax avoidance industry. Nobody appears to understand this. Ofwat, successive civil servants and successive Ministers do not appear to have understood what is going on. I am not excusing anybody: I have no faith in the continuation of the existing system. The industry continues to be run for the benefit of companies, company bosses and shareholders. If it is to be run properly from an environmental, security of water supply and cost point of view, it is essential, before changes are made, to subject the industry to freedom of information, so that troublemaking pressure groups and individuals can get to work on the figures in a way that Ofwat and the Department are clearly incapable of doing.

I have a more advanced view of what should be done: we should follow recent examples from Germany. Berlin decided to bring the control and operation of its water supply back under the ownership of the people of Berlin, and the people of Hamburg voted in a referendum to bring its electricity supply back under the control and ownership of the people of Hamburg. That almost happened in Berlin, but the necessary turnout was not quite achieved. I propose a trial run in London. We could give the people of London a referendum to ask, “Do you want to take over, and bring your water industry back under the ownership of something similar to the Metropolitan Water Board?” That would be popular with the public: at the weekend, an opinion poll showed that 69% of the population wanted the energy industry to go back into public ownership.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman has just criticised spending £2.5 billion on water meters as a luxury we cannot afford. How much would it cost to buy companies back into public ownership, and why would it be a good investment?

[Frank Dobson]

These industries are pleading poverty all the time, so it would not be all that expensive. The cost could be paid out over a very long period, which is what happened when industries were brought into public ownership in the 1940s and early 1950s.

Most people are sick to death of what is going on. They have no faith in Ofwat, officials at the Department or Ministers. I share their lack of faith and until we put forward some aggressive propositions nothing will change to the advantage of the people we try to represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who spoke with passion and real understanding about what is a complex issue. The water industry was privatised nearly a quarter of a century ago now, and it is reaching a crossroads. While I agree with my hon. Friend about the levels of investment that privatisation has delivered—which is well in excess of £100 billion in the last 25 years—we are reaching a stage where we now need to look for different solutions. My hon. Friend touched on a number of them in his remarks, and I was very impressed by his description of City analysts and their attitude to the regulated sector, and the challenge of gearing. As he said, the high level of gearing is causing inflexibility. That is leading to unimaginative solutions to the problems that beset companies such as Thames Water, which serves not only the London area, but the area I have the honour of representing: Swindon.

My hon. Friend mentioned abstraction from the Kennet, and I should commend the Save Water Swindon campaign, which is all about encouraging householders to be sensible in the use of water. It has had a marked impact and continues to this day. Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago I was helping Thames Water promote that campaign.

All that is detail, however, but today’s debate presents us with an opportunity to look more broadly at the challenge facing the industry. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for accepting the application made in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). There is quite a geographical spread between our constituencies, which shows that this is an issue for the whole country, not just the area I represent.

Although cost-of-living issues are very much the stuff of current political debate, the issues raised today long predate the current political spat. This debate has to be about value for money for local consumers and businesses and finding better ways for our water industry to operate.

Despite the interesting contribution of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who is no longer in his place, there is no doubt that 25 years ago privatisation was the right course of action. There was no alternative for the industry if we were to seek and secure new forms of capital investment. The achievements of Bazalgette and the Victorians lasted us for a long time, but we have by now reached a stage where renewal and reinvestment are essential.

Now, after nearly a decade of continued price rises, householders are rightly asking themselves, “Why us?” In the context of the current monopoly, who can they turn to? The situation is worse than the Henry Ford scenario of “You can have any colour you like, as long as it’s black,” because there is nowhere else for consumers to go.

I understand why the regional model was adapted from the previous nationalised structure. In many ways that made sense in terms of bringing together infrastructure with water supply, and I can think of the example of Severn Trent with its assets over the border in Wales, but I ask this question: is the regionalised model sustainable for the long term? Is there not a better way of dealing with the industry?

[Mr Redwood]

When we debated this, I was the one who said, “You must have competition and you can have competition in water, as in other things.” I lost that battle. Privatisation solved the capital shortage but, apart from that, it has left all the evils of the monopoly in the nationalised business—a lack of quality, a lack of choice, high costs and a lack of innovation.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that, and his role in all this back in the late 1980s must not be underestimated. As he rightly says, now is the time for us to draw an analogy with other industries such as telecoms, where infrastructure and supply are dealt with separately. Giving consumers the right to switch suppliers is essential if we are to drive through an improvement in service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you taking up your new duties, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Monopoly is the evil that we are here to debate. It is monopoly that stifles innovation. It is monopoly that drives prices higher. It is monopoly that takes away choice and consumer power, and it is monopoly that leads to rationing. We saw all those features in the water industry when it was nationalised. I am amazed that the Labour party still has people who think it would be a good idea to go back to the nationalised water monopoly, which regularly ran out of water in the summer. Woe betide the man or woman who had bedding plants in a hot summer in Britain—because before global warming we used to get hot summers, and then the water would run out. It was a tragedy, because it was a direct result of the nationalised industry.

The privatised industry, I am pleased to say, has done one thing better than the nationalised industry—it has got access to more capital. It has mended a lot of pipes, put in new pipes, and put some investment into dealing with dirty water as well, so we have fewer interruptions to supply under the privatised industry than before. However, we did not go far enough with the privatisation. We transferred the ownership but, as some of my hon. Friends have wisely pointed out, we kept in place much of the regional structure.

We bought the idiotic idea that the industry sold to Ministers and advisers that because rivers run to the sea in separate geographical areas called river basins, it was terribly important to have local monopolies around a river basin. Woe betide anyone who wanted to move water from one river basin area to another, and woe betide anyone who wanted to use borehole water. Apparently, it all had to be organised around river valleys. Sometimes it is difficult to create boundaries between them, because tributaries and streams have a habit of not being as neat as administrative lines on maps, but it was decided that we had to have this “natural monopoly”.

There is no natural monopoly in the supply of water. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) who has recently departed the Chamber, rain falls across the whole of the United Kingdom, not always all at the same time, not always in the same quantities, but this island is not cursed with a shortage of rain for most of the time, and we collect very little of it. It is also not true to say that water is some precious resource that has to be husbanded because it will run out. Water is the ultimate renewable resource. It falls as rain; it mainly runs out to the sea; it is picked up by the winds and goes back into the clouds; and it comes back again as rain. Nature or God, depending on one’s beliefs, does most of the job for us, producing an endless supply of water to this country. All that we have to do is provide business people who can raise the capital to make sure that we capture enough of that water in a form that we can then put into pipes, and that we clean it up to an appropriate standard for the use.

We did not introduce competition into the industry when we privatised it, so many of the evils of monopoly are still with us. We have less rationing, but we can still have rationing. We have quite dear prices, although perhaps they do not go up quite as quickly as they did when they were part of a Treasury exercise. We certainly get more capital into the industry, but at the expense of quite substantial gearing, as some hon. Gentlemen have mentioned. However, many of the bad features of the nationalised industry are perpetuated and it is very difficult being a challenger to the industry, so I pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who produced a White Paper which is becoming a piece of legislation, which will try to open up the market a bit more.

I pay tribute to the modest steps taken in Scotland, where it was discovered that far from the taps running dry or the water prices going through the roof if the authorities dared to have more than one provider of business water, the opposite has happened: the prices went down—a little bit, because there was not a great deal of competition coming in—and above all the quality of service rose. I have talked to some of the Scottish businesses that have to deal with the water industry. They say that the great breakthrough in Scotland as a result of competition was the fact that they could get a much better service. They could get the water supply when they wanted it and where they wanted it, and pipes and so on mended and repaired.

Businesses in Scotland can also negotiate with their water industry about what sort of water they want. At present, under a nationalised monopoly or a privatised monopoly, only one type of water is available. It is cleaned to a certain standard and it then has additives put in it. An industry wanting to make drinks may need to take the additives out before it can make its drinks, so there is a double cost and a nuisance, because it cannot get the type of water it wants. A firm that wants to carry out a fairly rudimentary washing business does not need water of a quality that we can drink, but it has to pay the extra price to buy the very high-quality water literally to tip it down the drain.

Therefore, we are not seeing experimentation, innovation or customer service because of a lack of competition. The industry is determined to supply only one grade of water and only the amount it can be bothered to supply, and then it blames the customer, should we dare to say that we want a bit more. We are now bombarded with messages from the industry suggesting that water is a natural monopoly and not the ultimate renewable resource. We are told that good people take only one bath a week in order to save water, that they do not use so much water for cleaning and that they ensure that they husband their use of water in their sinks and whatever machines they have at home that require it.

I have good news for my constituents: I do not believe that. I think that water is the ultimate renewable resource, that it ought to be made available more abundantly and more cheaply and that that could be done if we trusted competition. Surely one of the advantages of rising living standards, which is what we are all here to try to help create, is that people can then use more water because they have more things to clean, or because they wish to enjoy themselves in their bathroom. We need to ensure that they have access to the right quantities of cheaper water, and competition is the way to do that.

[Julian Smith]

My right hon. Friend, as always, is speaking in an impassioned way about the merits of competition. Will he explain to the House how quickly he thinks domestic competition could be introduced and whether he thinks the Government should be moving more quickly on that?

[Mr Redwood]

I would do it straight away. I cannot see what the problem is. If water is a natural monopoly, as some people argue, no harm will be done by breaking the formal monopoly; it is just that nothing will happen. But of course it is not a natural monopoly, which is why the industry is fighting so hard to keep a legal monopoly. It knows that it will have to wake up and change quite a lot if it has to face competition.

We would have to give the market some help to get it going, because the monopolists are in a very strong position. We would need to tell them to use their pipe network as a common carrier, because other people would need access to it. However, the challengers might soon find, as was the case with those sorts of arrangements in the telecoms industry, that the existing assets are not so great and that they want to put in their own pipes. The challengers in telecoms did that with wires, and then of course the radio links became a cheaper and better way of doing it. Who knows what technical breakthroughs there might be or how much challengers would want to use the common carrier network? However, to get competition going we would need to start with a common carrier network, so a system would need to be put in place to allow people access to the pipes.

We would also need to ensure that the Environment Agency was prepared to license borehole water and sensible levels of river extraction by other licensees. I do not want our rivers to be run dry by people taking too much out in a dry season, so we would need proper regulation for that. As has been pointed out, however, we let huge quantities of water go to the sea during wet periods, so we do not seem to be very good at planning our water use and holding it in suitable locations so that we have plenty in drier weather.

Another thing that I think the water industry needs to pay attention to, along with other utilities in this country, is the huge disruption they cause to our road network. Our road network is a nationalised monopoly and therefore has rationing and, looking at the tax bill, is extremely expensive. It has all the characteristics of monopoly provision that I dislike. One of the things that make our totally inadequate road network even worse is the fact that it is regularly disrupted by businesses digging up great chunks of tarmac and subsoil with pneumatic drills in order to lay new water pipes, other utility pipes and wires. Why on earth have we not learnt that it is not a great idea to put these things right down the middle of the road and then hard-pack soil, subsoil, tarmac and stones on top, which means huge delay, disruption and cost every time we want to change it? In modern buildings all the services run in ducts under the floors so that we do not have to rip out the plaster, half demolishing the place, every time we want to change the wiring.

Surely we could have a system to provide easy access along the side of our roads to pipes, wires and anything else we want to put down without having to dig up the road every time. We could at least start doing that when we build new estates, shopping centres or whatever. We should do it intelligently by putting in ducts to save all that money and time. I find utility companies very sympathetic to that idea when I invite them in to talk about it. They say, “It’s a very good idea, but it won’t work in this case, Mr Redwood.” We have to make it work, because many other countries are well ahead of us on all this. They think we are completely potty to go in for this idea that the water company digs up the road and puts in a new pipe, then six months later the gas people come along and do exactly the same thing in a slightly different position, and then the following year the electricity people turn up and do it again. It is mad, costly and inefficient, and it is doing huge damage to an inadequate road network.

For all those reasons, give us competition, give us choice, give us innovation, and give us some common sense, because we are getting a rotten deal at the moment.

Badger Cull

John Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McKenzie]

I would like to think that farmers in my area would not be convinced.

There is no accurate way of knowing how many badgers there are in an area, so how would we know when a cull had reached its quota of 70%? The culls are non-selective and would equally destroy healthy local badger populations. It is not possible to take out diseased badgers only. The research that the Government cherry-pick to try to justify their onslaught on badgers shows that even in TB hot spots most badgers are not infected. Licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it. Imminent pilot culls are too slight to measure impacts before wider roll-outs of culling, and badger culling risks becoming a costly distraction from nationwide TB control. Vaccination is now possible for both cattle and badgers, and should be implemented as soon as possible, as it has been in Wales.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the criticism of vaccination, which many feel is not a solution?

[Mr McKenzie]

What is equally not a solution is going out in the middle of the night and shooting badgers indiscriminately.

Vaccination is the most humane way forward, and, if it can happen, we should pursue it. I understand that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will be considering it. How can this be a science-based badger cull, as claimed by the Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when the Government’s chief scientist is among those who dispute the evidence used to justify killings? The Government should be asking whether the culling of badgers produces a significant effect in eliminating bovine TB. We believe the answer is no, it will not. Is culling badgers cost-effective? The answer is no. Is it morally and ethically appropriate? Again, we feel that the answer is no. The public costs alone of licensing and policing a cull will exceed £1 million in each pilot area. Shooting badgers in the pitch black is not a good idea. There are serious doubts about whether controlled shooting of free roaming badgers would actually achieve any worthwhile reduction in bovine TB at all.

We know how dreadful bovine TB is—I mentioned that our sympathies are with the farmers whose cattle are struck down by this terrible disease. We need to focus on other measures—those that will protect both cattle and badgers. We believe that vaccination is the way forward. Progress should be made on cattle vaccinations and DEFRA should secure change in the EU to permit commercial use of a cattle vaccine. There are far better ways to deal with bovine TB than the mass slaughter of badgers. We do not support a cull this year, next year or any year. We say: stop the cull and move to vaccinations.