Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Karen Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He is absolutely right: whatever the Opposition say today, one of the measures they did not vote for in the Environment Act 2021 was to enable Ofwat to hold water companies to account where they do not demonstrate a link between dividends and performance. They must have sound performance and be performing for their customers, otherwise they cannot pay out their dividends.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The staggering complacency we are hearing from the Minister will come as no comfort to my constituents who were flooded out three years ago in the west London floods, which were the second 100-year event in less than a decade. If Ofwat has been doing such a good job in holding the water companies to account, as she is now apparently telling us, why are we in this situation? What exactly has Ofwat been doing?

[Rebecca Pow]

It has to be remembered that privatisation occurred in 1989. We have had a succession of different Governments during that time, and it has been this Government who have accelerated clamping down on water companies and opening up transparency. The hon. Lady asks what Ofwat has done, and I will name just a few things. Since 2020, Ofwat has updated the licences so that if a water company loses its investment credit rating, it is barred from making payouts to shareholders. In July 2022, it set out additional proposals to increase financial resilience, including companies having a stronger credit rating. In March, it announced that it would take enforcement actions against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. We have done more than any Government before to ensure that we have a fully functioning, strong regulator.

Flood Risk: London

Karen Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Felicity Buchan]

This is one of the rare occasions on which the hon. Gentleman and I completely agree. We need a comprehensive solution, which I will go on to talk about: we need a short-term solution, because my constituents are very anxious about this summer since most of this flash flooding has occurred in July, August and September, and we also need a long-term strategy. My constituents, like the hon. Gentleman’s, simply cannot live with this risk hanging over them.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I informed the hon. Lady that we would be seeking to make a brief intervention. I am grateful to her, and congratulate her on securing this debate. As she knows, I secured a similar debate in the autumn.

Insurance is one of the most worrying issues for residents in our parts of London, along with the difficulty people face in obtaining affordable insurance or insurance at all. There is a scheme, but it does not cover many flat owners in blocks of more than six properties. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that we need to do more to make sure affordable insurance is available, as the risks of flooding are, unfortunately, only likely to increase?

[Felicity Buchan]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that affordable insurance needs to be available. Speaking from personal experience, as I said, I was flooded in 2007. My then insurance company did an amazing job of paying out to remedy the damage, but then said the year later that it did not want me as a client, so that is an important point.

Sometimes, I wonder why flooding in London does not attract more attention. When a member of the general public thinks about flooding, they probably think about flooded fields in Shropshire or coastal communities in Cornwall and Devon, but the reality is that flooding in London is a huge issue, and there are many reasons for that.

We have a Victorian sewerage system that was built for way fewer people. We have clearly seen climate change, with warmer air that can carry more moisture, hence more rainfall. We have also seen densification and concreting over in London, especially central London, so there simply are not as many places for surface water to flow. This is a very real issue; it is certainly one of the top issues in my constituency, and it will continue to be so, because the risks of these flooding events will continue to grow—because of climate change, as I have mentioned, but also because of population growth and the need for more housing.

I have set out the magnitude of the problem and the frequency of these events, and have said that we need short-term and long-term solutions, but it is worthwhile looking back at what has happened, because as I say, this has been going on for 20 years. After the devastating flood in 2007, Thames Water decided to put into effect a strategy to deal with the Counters Creek catchment area, which includes Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham. Its proposal, which it put to Ofwat and which Ofwat agreed to, was for—in effect—a 5 km relief sewer tunnel, and to add lots of individual flood defence mechanisms to houses, called FLIPs. It was agreed that that should take place in the period 2015 to 2020, and the expenditure was going to be £300 million. It was all agreed to and the work was due to be completed by 2020. However, Thames Water decided not to proceed with that relief tunnel. Indeed, it said that one of the reasons for not proceeding was that the

“risk of hydraulic sewer flooding was much lower than we had originally thought.”

Clearly, that conclusion was wrong, given the devastating flooding that we had in 2021.

Thames Water was fined by Ofwat for not proceeding with this significant infrastructure scheme. It is now 2022 and there has been devastating flooding, so if it was the right scheme before the expenditure for 2015 to 2020, I need to be convinced of the reasons why it is not the right scheme now. I am not a structural engineer, but if it was the right scheme then, I think it is likely to be the right scheme now. Clearly, we can improve things—we should not be wedded to technology from 10 years ago—but if the conclusion was that we needed major infrastructure investment then, I think it is highly likely that we need it now.

Since the floods in 2021, Thames Water has appointed an independent review panel to investigate them, what caused them and how Thames Water’s assets performed. I welcome that independent review, but we need to make sure that it is not simply an academic analysis. We need to make sure that the review leads to concrete proposals and a plan and strategy that we can implement. That plan needs to be both short term and long term, because my constituents cannot live with this risk hanging over their heads.

Thames Water has also made £10 million available to install individual FLIP devices in the worst-affected properties in London. Of course, £10 million is welcome, but I really do not think that it will sort out the issues in London. This is not £10 million for a small bit of Kensington; it is £10 million for the whole of London. We need a lot more investment.

By its own admission, Thames Water’s response on the night was inadequate. Both Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Councils had to get involved because Thames Water simply could not cope with the situation. I know that Thames Water has done an internal review, but it is very important that the processes are sorted.

I have outlined the problem, my concerns about the solutions offered to date, and my plea for better short-term solutions and a long-term infrastructure solution. I sought this debate, first, to highlight the issue and, secondly, to ask the Minister for her support in holding not only Thames Water but Ofwat and the Environment Agency to account. As I say, my constituents cannot spend the next 15 to 20 years with this hanging over their heads. If the right solution in 2015 was major infrastructure, I need to be convinced why that is not the right solution today.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) on securing this important debate. I understand how important it is to both her and the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck), because flooding devastates lives. It leaves the most horrendous effects, and I sympathise unreservedly with everyone affected.

I commend all those who responded last July and in previous floods. People were frightened and lost; they were trying to get a pet out, or to salvage important things such as personal photographs. Families I have spoken to after flooding often say it is those personal things they cannot replace that affect them the most. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said—I am sure it is the same for other hon. Members—families are still out of their houses almost a year later. Government are investing £5.2 billion in flood and coastal erosion defences in England, to better protect 336,000 properties. This specifically includes £313 million in London. The total spend in London is £370 million—the additional £57 million is made up by other partnership funds and so on.

Last July, the affected areas of London received over a month’s rainfall in just a couple of hours. It overwhelmed drainage networks and caused the surface water flooding that my hon. Friend has spoken to me about at some length, particularly in Notting Hill and north Kensington, but I am sure other hon. Members will have equally harrowing stories from their constituencies.

[Ms Buck]

On that point, to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), we were told when we had floods in 2011 and 2012 that they were one-in-100-year events. Ten years later, we are back having what is described as a one-in-300-year event. That reinforces the urgent need for Thames Water to recognise and make that investment. These events are occurring with a regularity that is absolutely not normal, and the adjustment has to be made to accommodate it.

[Jo Churchill]

As pointed out, these so-called never events appear to be happening more frequently. Given the combination of climate change with other things, we need to look fundamentally at how the system is joined up. I think the hon. Member for Hammersmith articulated that this does not need a “bit” approach but an overall approach. Hopefully, hon. Members will see where the thinking is going.

That overwhelming meant that we got complex localised surface water flooding. Water does not stop. It knows no bounds. It does not stop at a constituency edge or a road end. Indeed, many of our towns and villages have lanes called Water Lane, for example, because we know that is the natural course of water. It happens quickly; it is difficult to predict; it can be exacerbated by the impenetrable surfaces that my hon. Friend spoke about, and it can overwhelm the drainage networks. Everyone—all those agencies, individuals, local authorities, Ofwat, the Environment Agency—has their part to play in understanding the flood risk and the mitigating actions they should take, as do the householders, to ensure they can best protect themselves and their property.

The statutory responsibility to manage flood risk falls to the risk management authorities such as the Environment Agency and the lead local flood authorities and water companies. As my hon. Friend well knows, the Environment Agency has the strategic overview role, and while it does not lead on surface water flooding, it provides support and advice and facilitates partnerships. I know that she has met with all the agencies and with Sarah Bentley at Thames Water to champion her constituents’ challenges, but I would like to reassure her that that cross-partnership work is going on.

Lead local flood authorities have the operational lead in managing local flood risk, including surface water risk. They are best placed to understand, mitigate and respond to these risks. Working with local communities and with the invaluable information that Members and other bodies bring forward, as part of the local flood risk management strategy, they are driving down and making sure that we get the right mitigations in the right places to protect people.

The Government fully support and encourage greater collaboration and partnership working. Following the flooding, many organisations stepped forward this time to work together to make sure we got the right result. As everybody has said, this is not a situation where responsibility can be passed on. There is a task and finish group going on. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), covers this part of the portfolio and will be meeting with the deputy Mayor shortly to hear more about this work. She will challenge them to ensure that the right work is going on in the right places to drive the right results and make sure there is ambition.

What I have heard from everybody is that they want there to be the ambition to protect constituents. The task and finish group has been working on a range of issues, including better communication. As was alluded to, we know that many residents do not have English as a first language. We know that there were challenges because of transient populations, and a sub-group on communications has been set up. I have been assured that the failures seen last summer are noted and being addressed and rectified. I believe the call centre went down, and there were various other challenges.

Impact of Floods in North Westminster

Karen Buck Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of floods in Westminster North.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, in this short debate.

I am grateful to the Minister for being here today and for this opportunity to raise an issue that has been hugely important to my constituents this summer. I will ask for her help in holding Thames Water to account for its very poor performance in the aftermath of the floods in my constituency and in getting responses from it to a number of unanswered questions about how the floods occurred. In doing so, this debate will also have implications for water companies and flood preparation in other parts of the country.

Before I turn to the specific events that happened in Westminster North, I will briefly refer to the context in which they happened, because they clearly took place in the context of rising flood risks, arising in particular from climate change. We know that climate change is impacting harder and faster than even our worst fears a few years ago, and that devastating floods have wreaked havoc across the world, from New York to Germany and elsewhere. We have to accept the reality that extreme weather events are the new normal. Also, while poorer communities are always at greater risk of damage from such extreme events, floods or other kinds of extreme weather—such as the extremely dry weather that causes forest fires—are no respecters of postcodes.

So when Thames Water points to an exceptionally slow-moving weather system concentrating unusually high rainfall in a particular area, as was the case in my constituency in July, it may indeed be right. The question is whether such a powerful monopoly provider as Thames Water should have done more to anticipate and prepare for such events. Also, given the history, which I will refer to in a moment, why did the preparations that had been made fail and why was Thames Water’s immediate response to the flooding so inadequate?

Westminster City Council also has duties in this area. After the introduction of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, responsibility for local flood risk management, including surface water run-off, groundwater and flooding from ordinary water courses, was passed to lead local authorities, of which Westminster City Council is one.

Westminster City Council had already identified, via its floods policy, that:

“Due to the heavily urbanised nature of Westminster, and the predominantly Victorian drainage infrastructure, there is a widespread risk of surface water flooding…It is expected that sewer flooding may occur within Westminster and a consistent risk profile is therefore applicable. There is a risk of groundwater flooding within Westminster, and this risk is likely to be exacerbated by increased below ground development (basement extensions etc.).”

The issue of basement extensions has been a hugely controversial one for me in recent years.

The council’s floods policy continues:

“There is a residual risk of flooding due to the failure of either water mains or canals”.

The council recognised in the policy that:

“Further enhanced surface water flood risk modelling was undertaken…in 2015…The study considered the impact of climate change on surface water flood risk assuming a 20% and 40% increase in peak rainfall intensity.”

The council is currently undertaking its own review of the July floods and we expect a report imminently. However, it is already clear that the increased risk of flooding, due to climate change in particular, was understood.

So what happened on 12 July, the day of these particular floods? In the afternoon, intense rain impacted on an estimated 500 properties, mostly, although not entirely, in the Maida Vale area. The water rose incredibly quickly and in addition to the rain and the overflow, sewage pipes backed up, covering many homes—particularly basements—with raw sewage. Thousands of calls were made to Thames Water, with little or no response from it in the immediate aftermath of the flooding.

The London Fire Brigade was in attendance and many local residents spoke of there then being a specific intervention by the fire brigade, which led water to drain away “like a plug being pulled out of a bath”. Over that night and the next day or two, hundreds of residents and businesses were left in crisis, due not only to the damage but to the obvious health risk associated with the sewage overflows.

After a varyingly slow start, which was particularly slow by Thames Water, staff from the council, from housing providers and then from Thames Water got to the scene to support people and begin the clear-up. People helped their neighbours magnificently and many staff worked very hard in the aftermath to ease the distress. Even so, people fell through the net. One constituent, who is HIV positive and currently receiving cancer treatment, was put into a hotel and no payment was made. My office was dealing with him on the night after the floods when he was crying in the lobby because of the lack of support.

Many people had to be urgently rehoused after their home was flooded with sewage. That was not organised for a couple of days and, even now—as recently as last week—I heard from a woman who is still confined to a single room in her home as she is immune suppressed and the rest of her home is badly affected by the damp and mould, to which she cannot risk prolonged exposure.

Those affected and many others in the at-risk areas want to know why the water rose so fast and why the sewers backed up and then why the water disappeared so fast once the London Fire Brigade attended. They deserve to know whether anything could have been done sooner to avert disaster as the rain fell. A typical comment went, “As you might know, the water levels dropped very suddenly after the fire brigade attended on our street and seemingly opened a flood valve or removed some kind of obstruction. The rain was still falling as heavily as it had been, but the water went, in my case, from 70 cm deep to ground level within minutes. Thames Water are blaming heavy rainfall but that does not explain how the water just dissipated.”

Many, although not all those affected in Westminster—the problem was particularly concentrated in the Maida Vale area—have a wider question. After localised flooding some 10 years ago, ward councillors, residents and I pressed Thames Water to increase drainage capacity in the W9 and NW6 areas. This was strongly resisted for some time. Thames Water took the line that these were 100-year events. We counter-argued that there had now been two 100-year events in the course of just three years. It gave in, and in the middle of the last decade, new tanks were installed under Tamplin Gardens in W9 and additional capacity was increased, with major works around Warwick Avenue and Westbourne Green lasting two years.

In 2012, Thames Water told us it would complete the Maida Vale sewer flooding alleviation scheme over the next two years, saying that the alleviation project would cover four wards in the Maida Vale area and be good news for the 400 or so residents who have experienced sewer flooding over the past few years, some of whom have been flooded with sewage up to nine times.

The heart of the matter is this question, which Thames Water and, to some extent, Westminster, must answer. Why did a major alleviation scheme designed to cope with 100-year events fail so spectacularly within just half a decade? Was the additional capacity insufficient and should that have been foreseen six or seven years ago? Was the system properly operational? Were there any blockages in the system? Were the drains clear and properly maintained? If the rain that fell on 12 July was a 300-year event, as we have now been told, how long before it fails again?

If Thames Water now suggests that we cannot build our way out of the severe weather-related flood risk, how and when will a package of alternative measures be put in place across agencies to achieve a reasonable level of protection?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate because several hundred of my constituents were equally affected by the floods she is describing. Thames Water candidly described its response to me as “bloody awful”. It said it was under new management with new shareholders, but it is always under new management and new shareholders. That is the problem. It was exactly the same 10 or 15 years ago, when the same properties were flooded for the same reasons and the schemes have either been cancelled or have not worked. Does she agree that, like the Thames tunnel and the Bazalgette sewers we rely on now, whoever ends up paying for and delivering this, it needs Government direction, because this is a serious matter that repeatedly affects our constituents?

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is right. We are constantly told that Thames Water is under new management. That management always seems to enjoy a level of remuneration that would make my constituents blanch. It continues to charge costs to consumers and is seemingly impervious to the kind of challenges and questions that he and I are raising.

We were told by Thames Water at a public meeting at the end of July that this event was simultaneously unforeseeable and yet also likely to happen again. Legally, its position remains that it is not liable for the damage arising as a result of the flooding. It claims that London’s sewers were never designed to deal with rain on that scale, and yet relies on the fact that its systems meet the targets as evidence that it was not negligent. If that position holds and is reaffirmed by the inquiry set up by Thames Water, this question arises: how can targets be adjusted significantly to reflect the changing weather expected over the coming years before more homes are affected by similar events?

Almost everyone who was in touch with me and ward councillors over the days and weeks after the July floods has good grounds for feeling that Thames Water failed them with its response that night and in the aftermath. A significant minority of people whose homes were flooded are still suffering and feel that their housing providers, council and Thames Water have not acted as swiftly and caringly as they might have done, despite many of the employees stretching every sinew to help.

What assessment has been made of the capacity in local authorities and housing providers to resource their emergency responses? They have been cut back drastically in the past decade and, as we saw with Grenfell, an effective emergency response cannot be guaranteed without the staff available to deliver it. Increasingly, they also have to be able to manage more than one crisis at a time, or in close succession.

Has the Minister undertaken an assessment of the capacity of local councils and others to support residents who lose everything in disasters such as this? Local support payments are designed to patch the increasingly large holes in social security, not to help what might be hundreds of people on lower incomes who are uninsured and left without furniture, clothing and toys. Also, local support payments offer assistance only to those on qualifying benefits—excluding people on working tax credits, for example.

Locally, we have organised crowd funding and worked with the local voluntary sector to relieve hardship. I congratulate such volunteers and One Westminster for their assistance; they have been significantly more supportive of the community than has Thames Water, which I asked to contribute to the hardship funding quite separately from the issue of liability—a request that has been ignored. Why is it that volunteers and community organisations can raise more money for people who have been devastated by floods than the powerful monopoly water provider can?

I turn back to the flood itself. The threat of recurrence now haunts us locally. How are the Government working with local authorities in areas such as mine, where large numbers of basement properties are understood to be at particular risk? Westminster’s 2019 flood policy states:

“Self-contained basements or basement flats wholly or partially below ground without freely available access at all times to a habitable space above ground level within the same dwelling are ‘highly vulnerable’”,

and that

“applicants are encouraged to incorporate flood resistance and resilience measures as part of the design…to prevent water ingress and to reduce flood damage should flooding occur.”

Is encouragement enough, however? How will that be monitored? Where will the responsibility lie in privately owned properties, whether freehold or leasehold? What rights do private tenants have? Who would pay for such alterations to social housing? The time for warm words and vagueness is definitely now over; in terms of damage and indeed safety, we need firmer action. Do the Government have plans to scale up the expectations of local councils—backed by the necessary resources—to review, report on and deal with factors that expose residents to flood risk?

Then there is Thames Water. Ultimately, as I said, residents feel that Thames Water let them down catastrophically. One typical comment was:

“Thames Water were extremely slow in dealing with this emergency and when they made an appointment either didn't turn up or if they did were several hours late. They then arrived with a dust pan and brush and a bottle of bleach and were quite unhelpful commenting always how it was not the fault of Thames Water and what a wonderful company they are.”

My constituents believe they deserve compensation for the damage caused, although Thames Water has already been quick to deny liability. Will the Minister assist my constituents and me in pressing Thames Water to ensure that the already somewhat foot-dragging independent inquiry is now completed as a matter of urgency, so that we have absolute clarity on the sequence of events on 12 July? How can my constituents hold Thames Water to account more effectively given the obvious imbalance in power and resources between them—me—and a private company of such size enjoying a monopoly position as a provider? I and hundreds of local residents need the support of the Government if capacity is to be increased, people protected and Thames Water held to account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

As ever, it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir David.

I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for securing this important debate. The issue has clearly affected so many people’s lives, as we saw in the news during the summer. I pay tribute to all those who helped: the emergency services, and in particular the Environment Agency and the fire services, who really led on this emergency.

My heart goes out to all those people who suffered; I come from Somerset, so I know about flooding. I have also visited a great many people around the country, so we know how devastating flooding can be for people. I do not underestimate what it is like, and nor do the Government: we have doubled flood funding to £5.2 billion in the next spending period, which will put in place more than 2,000 new defences around the country.

The hon. Member for Westminster North has focused very much on surface water flooding, and in the new Budget we have escalated the importance placed on that issue. Approximately a third of that spending will be on surface water flooding schemes, so although it did not help the hon. Lady this July—although there are some schemes within her constituency—that issue is going to receive much greater emphasis going forward, and rightly so. Surface water flooding is the most widespread form of flooding in England, with around 3.2 million properties at risk. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the effects of climate change combined with population growth mean that we are expecting more of these related issues.

However, everybody—not just the Government—has a responsibility for managing water effectively. In England, the statutory responsibility for managing flood risk falls to the risk management authorities, including the Environment Agency and the lead local flood authorities. The Environment Agency has a strategic overview role for all sources of flooding, and although it does not lead on surface water flooding, it does provide support and advice on risks and facilitates effective partnerships.

I have just been on a visit to Merseyside and West Yorkshire, and have seen some very good examples of those partnerships working to get over some of the problems that people are facing. The lead local flood authorities—county and unitary councils—have the lead operational role in managing all local flood risks, including surface water, and are responsible for identifying the risks and managing them as part of the local risk management strategy. Alongside this, the highways authorities have responsibility for the road network, which includes highway and road drainage maintenance, and water and sewerage companies are responsible for maintaining the public sewer network to ensure that the area is well drained.

As the hon. Member for Westminster North said, we saw devastating flooding this summer, not just in Westminster but around the world. Here, we had those incidents in July and August: the Met Office recorded over a month’s worth of rainfall in just a few hours, and the localised nature of the downpours meant that certain areas were incredibly badly affected while neighbours were not affected at all. It was quite extraordinary, as I think the hon. Lady will agree. The flooding witnessed in north Westminster was primarily due to surface water. This kind of event occurs with extreme rainfall, where the water simply cannot drain away as quickly as it is arriving.

[Ms Buck]

I want to stress one of the central points of the argument: Thames Water built a £17 million flood alleviation scheme, completed just six years ago, to deal with exactly this problem in exactly this area, yet it failed catastrophically. We have been unable to get Thames Water to properly respond to us about why that happened—whether it was a planning issue or an operational one. That is one of the key things that I would like the Minister to help me get Thames Water to respond to.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I hear what she says. Measures were put in place when the Met Office gave its warnings, but of course it was all so quick: the fire brigade swung into action, but those things that the Environment Agency could whizz into place, such as trash screens, just could not cope with that flooding or the sewage overflows and so forth. That is what the Thames tideway tunnel project is going to address, and I have a meeting with those involved later this afternoon. However, the hon. Lady is right that questions need to be asked about that new development. As she referred to, a big public meeting was held with Westminster City Council after the flooding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karen Buck Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

One thing that I have just said in reference to this question is that we are very keen to promote the buying of British produce. We have a plan to promote domestic products, and we are further strengthening export support. On the other part of the hon. Lady’s question, we will have a chapter in the new Australia deal to deal with the protection of animal welfare standards. I encourage her to get engaged with the details as they emerge in the course of this year.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on maintaining British food standards in a future trade deal with Australia.

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

I have had regular discussions with the Secretary of State at the Department for International Trade and, indeed, other Cabinet colleagues on the issue of food standards in the context of our negotiations with Australia. The UK has a prohibition on the sale of beef treated with hormones, and the agreement recognises our right to regulate in this way.

[Ms Buck]

The Secretary of State will be aware that environmental, animal welfare and farming groups have all expressed their concern about both the small print in the deal and the precedent that it sets. The Minister knows that trust is in very short supply, and that deals have a habit of unravelling, as we have seen very clearly in recent months.

Can the Minister give us a date by which the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be fully operational, and the date on which the analysis of this deal will be published?

[George Eustice]

The Secretary of State for International Trade will, I think, be giving a statement later. The Government have now published the key components of the agreement in principle, and some analysis of the impacts of this agreement has already been cited. Australia is a very important partner of ours, and it is important that we get a trade agreement with it. It is, of course, a smaller economy and the opportunities are therefore not as large as they would be with a larger economy, but nevertheless, Australia is an important ally and this is a good agreement between us.

Environment Bill

Karen Buck Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

I will take a point of information from the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much. On air quality, will she join me in congratulating the Mayor of London on the success of the ultra low emission zone, which has seen such a dramatic fall in polluting vehicles moving into inner London? Is she also conscious of the fact that 83% of reporting zones across the country are still in breach of air pollution limits? However much she tells us that the Government will be doing better, does she recognise just how scandalously short we have fallen in recent years? We have very serious doubts about what the Government are—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We cannot have this, because the hon. Lady has just spoken for half as long as most people who wait here till 10 o’clock will get.