Ivory Bill

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Graham P. Jones]

I want to speak to new clause 2, although on new clause 1, and given the speech we just heard from the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), I must say that I entirely agree that we should broaden the species to which the Bill applies, because it is about saving our wildlife, planet and ecosystem. None of those things operates in isolation. Our ecosystem is holistic and we must protect it as one. I would therefore hope that any changes made by new clause 1 would make the provisions as broad as possible.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow Front-Bench spokesperson have tabled new clause 2. I know that it has been brought forward with the notion of trying to gain cross-party support, however, because I do not think it goes far enough at all.

A year ago, when I had the fortune to meet Angolan MPs, I raised this issue with them. It is a case in point that while legislation to ban ivory was passed in 2016, those MPs had no idea that they had passed the legislation. When legislators do not know that they have passed legislation, we know we are starting off with a bit of a problem.

In 2018, poaching in Angola is as virulent as it was prior to the legislation. The rate of poaching has simply continued. Action has been taken and poachers have been prosecuted in cases involving considerable amounts of ivory, but by the time they are caught, the elephant is unfortunately dead. The elephant population is, of course, declining. Figures from National Geographic suggest that before the civil war, in around 1975, there were 200,000 elephants in Angola, but there may be just 2,000 left. According to more accurate figures from the general elephant census, which was conducted in partnership with Elephants Without Borders, there were some 70,000 elephants in southern Angola before the war but there are now around 3,400. That is a colossal cull of this wonderful animal over 40 years. I stress that the issue affects many animals, but in the short time I have, I wish to concentrate on elephants.

According to Elephants Without Borders, in 2015, for every 10 live elephants that the census recorded, it found four carcases. That is incredible. Fifty-five elephants are being killed every day and the population is down by 111,000 in the past decade. The way in which they are killed paints a picture of what this cruel industry is about, how it operates and how poachers act with impunity. They use AK47s, and it requires many AK47 rounds to bring an animal down. We have all seen the horrific pictures of elephants that have not been killed, but are alive and suffering while their horns are hacked off. It is truly appalling.

The great elephant census did not just cover Angola. Between 2009 and 2016—just seven years—Tanzania has seen an elephant population decline of 60%, almost all of which is due to poaching. In the same seven-year period, Mozambique has seen a 48% fall in its elephant population. The National Academy of Sciences has said that 100,000 elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012. These statistics paint a picture of incredible carnage and an incredible reduction in elephant numbers. I, for one, am sad. We must take firmer action.

Elephants Without Borders has suggested that not only legislation is required. We must take protective action. The two must go hand in hand, but the legislation must be tough, and new clause 2 does not go far enough. We must do more. I welcome the fact that DFID staff are out in Kenya, providing some support for the protection of elephants. Perhaps that is the beginning of a future in which we protect the animals on this planet, along with the biology of the environment that we need to sustain the planet from which we draw life.

We need legislation, but we also need active protection. Legislating in this place simply does not go far enough; it is time for international laws and international action. It is time for the United Nations to step up and begin to put in place a framework that protects our planet and these animals. It is time that we not only pass legislation, but take direct action on protected areas. Instead of just providing armed forces for humanitarian purposes, it is about time that we and the United Nations provided forces for environmental purposes. The time has come for us, both as legislators and those active in the field, to take this issue seriously.

I finish by congratulating the British Army on what it is doing out in Kenya, but we need more of it. I support new clause 2 as a beginning, but it is the beginning of a long road, because a lot more needs to be done.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

This is a very important debate. In listening to speeches from across the House, I was struck by the fact that I had never seen the House so united in terms of the purpose and seriousness of this legislation. The real differences—if there are differences—are about the manner of dealing with this and how we get the best results. That is very encouraging.

If one were to look at the number of elephants, one would be truly horrified. There were something like 1.2 million in 1980. Today, from the figures that I saw, there are a little over 400,000. Over 38 years, we have seen a two-thirds reduction in the number of wild elephants, so the species is undoubtedly in danger.

As a consequence, one can see why the Government have come up with this legislation. Initially, it was a very narrowly focused Bill, essentially designed to stop the trade in ivory with respect to elephants and the killing of elephants by poachers. One can understand exactly what the narrow scope of this legislation was. It was right for the people who have been campaigning on this issue to suggest that the narrow focus on elephants should be widened. Obviously, ivory comes from a range of sources. People have talked about mammoths and the teeth of hippopotamuses. It was inevitable that the legislation as drafted would be perhaps attacked or scrutinised on the basis that the focus was too narrow. I fully understand that.

What has happened in the past couple of days is that the Front-Bench team has listened to the debates and to the various representations. I saw on Twitter—I do not use Twitter very much, by the way—that the Environment Secretary has suggested that the next phase should be a much wider consultation than that proposed in new clause 1 by Opposition Front Benchers. That must be the right approach because, under the new clause, as Members have mentioned, mammoths are not included. We know that the way people claim that bits of ivory come from mammoths hides a multitude of sins and a great deal of criminality. That is another issue that is often overlooked in this debate—it has been mentioned once or twice.

The communities in which elephant poaching takes place, and the people who are driving this trade, are often linked with organised crime and with other very unsavoury elements in the countries of Africa in which the elephant and ivory are found. This has been going on for decades. One need only read accounts from Stanley in the 19th century to see how poachers—mass murderers, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) suggested—have been perpetrating these crimes for decades. It has to stop. The reason that this is an interesting and important piece of legislation is that it marks, I think, the first time, or one of the first times, that a western country—or certainly an advanced economic country—has taken this issue very seriously.

As we go forward, after the international conference at the beginning of October, we will have to be even more focused and even more rigorous in our approach to the ivory trade. As people have observed, just banning the ivory trade with respect to the elephant will not be good enough. We have to take a holistic approach. We cannot simply say that ivory from the elephant should be banned and not legislate for other animals and other sources of ivory. The broader approach is obviously the best one, but legislation is difficult in any broad approach. We have to get the right terms and the right drafting. I am not sure that new clause 1 is necessarily the best way of trying to address this problem, which is why I will vote against it if it is pressed to a Division. I think that Government amendments 3 and 4 are a bit broader and more flexible. As we have discovered today, there have been later announcements suggesting that a broader approach—even broader than that proposed in new clause 1—is for the best.

It is a real credit to this House that something as sensitive as this Bill has brought forward a wide, courteous and informed debate. It is a real honour to be able to participate in the passage of this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

That is another excellent point. DEFRA officials work very closely with their counterparts in other countries. The conference in October will be a perfect opportunity to bring parties together. If further co-operation is required they will be ready to do that, but there is important work to do in the UK as well.

The Government want to ensure that if in future we decide to extend the scope of the ban, any legislation which applies to ivory-bearing animals or species is robust, proportionate, defensible, enforceable and, importantly, compliant with the European convention on human rights. We will therefore ensure that we gather and analyse evidence on the market for ivory from the other species. We therefore think that it is vital to consult on any proposals and gather views and evidence from stakeholders and the public. That would support an analysis that will focus on the impact of the measures—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Could my hon. Friend give the House any indication on timing for the consultation process?

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I have sat through the whole debate and heard all the contributions, and it is very odd that nobody on the Scottish National party Benches thinks that leaving the EU would be a good thing. One of the curiosities of first past the post is that 38% of Scotland voted to leave the EU, but the SNP is entirely negative about the prospect of leaving it. It shows an iron discipline that Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe would be very proud of, but it is not representing the full range of Scottish opinion.

I want to make a very obvious point. For every £1 we receive from the EU, we put £2 in. That is what being a net contributor means. We can therefore more than compensate for the loss of any EU subsidies from our own budget, which—this is the point—we can decide for ourselves in the United Kingdom Parliament.

One would think that Britain never had a thriving, successful industry and agriculture before we joined the European Economic Community in 1972. Britain had industry, business and farming for 1,000 years before that. If the Opposition parties knew their history—I am surprised that Labour Members have not mentioned this—they would know that the Labour party introduced the Agriculture Act 1947, which very successfully underpinned British agriculture before we joined the EEC. No one remembers that; we just have doom and gloom from the Opposition parties.

Flooding

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in the debate. Two years ago, my constituency saw some of the worst flooding witnessed in that area since 1947. I regret to say that there was a fatality. A seven-year-old boy, Zane Gbangbola, was killed as a consequence of the flooding. The inquest into his death is going to be held next week. For two years, his parents have barely managed to get over that appalling loss.

My experience and that of my constituents was that Ministers were responsive. There was a commitment to spend money on flood defences, and generally there was a feeling that Government and governmental bodies— the ambulance service, the fire service, the police— responded reasonably well. Luckily, in the past few weeks, we have not been affected by the flooding that has ravaged so many parts of the country, particularly in the north, but we are always alert. We are always watching in case the rivers rise to a level at which homes are endangered.

Reflecting what others have said about flooding, I have seen many homes that have been flooded. I went to one in my constituency with the Prime Minister. There is nothing more inconveniencing or more depressing than being flooded out of one’s own home. In many cases, even now, two years after the appalling floods of 2014, people still have not returned to their homes.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way. Does he agree that in his constituency, like mine, we know that the response to flooding may be good, but constituents in our areas are concerned about prevention and action on prevention?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is right. The steps that the Government have taken towards preventing flooding in our areas in the Thames valley have been impressive. There has been a commitment to a flood defence scheme. Obviously, more could be done. Discussions are being held about funding and about the balance—how much should be contributed by central Government and how much by local government. That is a legitimate debate.

I am glad about the spirit in which much of this debate has taken place. It is not a good arena for a party political slanging match, which was set up by the motion. I am pleased to see that the course of the debate has not reflected the partisan and highly opportunistic nature of the motion.

One of the other things we have to bear in mind as legislators and as representatives of constituents right through this county is the long-term plan to try and deal with the phenomenon. For whatever reason, we have seen much more flooding in the past 10 or 15 years than was the case in the preceding 50 years. The Government owe it to everyone in this House and to our constituents to have a robust plan to deal with flooding and with a range of natural occurrences on a much more strategic basis, with much more long-term planning. We do not want to be in a situation where, whenever flooding occurs, we rush to have a debate, to recriminate and to urge the Government to spend more money.

It is easy for politicians to say that we should spend more money. I totally understand that that is a human thing to want to do, to make sure that our defences are adequately resourced and that we are spending money effectively to meet a problem, but we have to recognise that we are still borrowing £1.4 billion a week. It is good that the Secretary of state is mindful of her obligation to balance the books as well as to provide relief.

Local Flooding

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise this important issue today. The floods during the winter of 2013-14 had an immeasurable impact on my constituency, and resulted in many cases of hardship and, I regret to say, a tragic fatality. Seven-year-old Zane Gbangbola died during the floods in February 2014, in tragic circumstances that have still not been explained. It is important to remember that those tragic events took place not in another country but here in Britain, very close to home.

Today, I want to raise the issue of local flooding and the wider question of responsibility for the maintenance of key parts of the infrastructure. I also want to talk about the frustration of many residents at the fact that none of the various bodies involved—local government, borough councils, the Environment Agency, the water companies—seems to be able to take full responsibility for the damage that has been caused by a lack of maintenance and a lack of care towards key bits of infrastructure.

Anyone in my constituency who lives near the river will have to deal with the bewildering array of bodies, in the public and private sectors, that claim some share of authority in the maintenance of key bits of infrastructure relating to water and the environment. I want to stress how confusing it was for the private residents who were facing appalling circumstances in their own homes during those winter floods.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. I have the greatest sympathy for the family of his constituent who died as a consequence of the flood. I agree with him when he says that those bodies do not communicate with each other, and that our residents are utterly confused. I appreciate that Spelthorne suffered a lot of flooding. I live almost in the river in Teddington, and as I walked through the flood water, the level was right up to thigh level on my boots. The problem for Teddington is a lack of communication between the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority. The Thames barrier could go up to protect the tidal area of London, but on the upper reaches of the Thames, the weirs and locks could be opened—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech. Interventions must be kept to a minimum.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, representing Twickenham, for articulating the point so well. This is something that cannot be stressed enough: ordinary people going about their business should not be subjected to these extreme circumstances. I fully understand that they could be described as natural events—they are acts of God—but when it comes to responsibility, if there are aqueducts involved, or if there are floodgates or sluice gates that need to open or shut, or if there are drainage systems that are not working, that is something manmade, for which there should be some accountability or responsibility. That is what this debate is all about.

More specifically, I want to talk about what happened with the flooding of the River Ash, which is one of the main reasons for calling this debate. It would appear that the flooding of the River Ash was aggravated as a consequence of a sluice gate not being shut, and not doing its job of shutting out water after an initial warning was given. The basic contention among residents who were flooded is that, between Saturday 8 February 2014 and Wednesday 12 February, this half-open sluice gate significantly aggravated the flooding. The protocols established after the severe flooding in 2003 firmly stated that the Environment Agency should give authority for Thames Water to shut the sluice gate in such an extreme situation. That should have happened on 8 February, when I believe the warning was given, or at the very latest on the morning of Sunday 9 February.

However, as I said in an Adjournment debate that I secured in May 2014, on the Monday morning the Environment Agency learnt that the gate—sluice gate No. 8—was still not operating. We are led to believe that later that morning, at around 7.35 am, the Environment Agency raised the prospect of calling in the Army to shut the gate. At 10 in the evening, Surrey police informed residents in Greenlands Road and Leacroft, which are residential areas in Staines, to evacuate their homes. That was an extreme outcome. In this day and age, having police telling those living in a highly residential area to evacuate is an extreme occurrence. People should not have to experience that in our country.

I will carry on explaining what happened, but I want to stress that, in many ways, the details are not relevant; or rather, they are relevant, but they raise wider questions—even, one might contend, philosophical questions—about the nature of the responsibility involved.

To resume my story, by 10 pm on Monday 10 February, the situation was serious. The next day, Thames Water, the water company which owned the aqueduct and whose mission it was to keep the infrastructure in good maintenance, sent in contractors with heavy equipment to the sluice gates, which I understand were not working. Only in the early hours of Wednesday 12 February did Thames Water finally close the gate by 1 metre. Once it was closed, the water levels began to recede quickly and on the morning of Thursday 13 February the floodwater had significantly gone.

The facts I have outlined, as I have on previous occasions in the House, are not really what the debate is about. This debate is about a broader question.

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

To clarify, I think there is a question of correlation and causation in relation to the statement that my hon. Friend has made. This is a very serious issue, and it is of course true that the floodgate was closed just after midnight on 12 February and that the waters then receded, but I am afraid that we do not have evidence that there is a direct causative relationship between those two things.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am happy for the Minister, with his usual acuity, to point that out. In many ways, the actual details are neither here nor there. Let me put it in the conditional mood, because the Minister might then be able to understand what I am driving at. If it were the case that that was the cause, who would ultimately bear the responsibility? That is the broader question. We can have debates about causation until we are blue in the face. If we want to be philosophical about it, it is difficult to prove any form of causation, but that is not the question here. The point is that people’s homes were affected by an accident that they believe, rightly or wrongly, had something material to do with the maintenance of a key piece of infrastructure.

If it were the case that the sluice gate had not been maintained properly, whose job was it to tell the water company or to enforce a decent degree of maintenance by it? I fully understand that the water company, being a private company, will not put up its hand and say that it was responsible, to the tune of millions of pounds, for all the damage. I understand how corporate life works. What I am interested in finding out—and I still have not had an answer—is who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that that piece of infrastructure was properly maintained. As I have said many times to my constituents, it is not my job as an MP to ascertain the facts: we have other processes for doing that. What I am interested in is the issue of responsibility and accountability that such circumstances raise.

In summary, facts can be disputed. As we have seen in this brief debate, causation can be disputed. But what my constituents and I want to know is that if people have not done their job, in terms of maintaining crucial infrastructure, who takes responsibility? Is it the county council? Does it have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a sluice gate or any such infrastructure is maintained properly? Is it the water company on whose shoulders responsibility should rest? Is it the Environment Agency? We have seen occasions on which the agency has taken relevant bodies to court. Who should ultimately bear the responsibility? That is my question, and it is important. To my constituents, other hon. Members and me, the question of responsibility remains murky and obscure. We simply do not know who to turn to or where the buck stops. We do not know who is responsible, in the last instance, for ensuring that key bits of infrastructure or equipment are maintained. That is a legitimate question to ask.

It was in that spirit of inquiry that I applied for this debate. The issue is a simple one and we must remember one basic fact: the aqueduct was on private property. The contention is that a piece of infrastructure on that private property was not adequately maintained to do its job. The simple question that follows on from that fact is who is ultimately responsible for that maintenance.

I am happy to have expressed my views and those of my constituents in this debate. I thank the Minister for his forbearance and I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I had the privilege of visiting the area around Teddington with the Environment Agency two weeks ago. The agency has extremely complex and serious models—geomorphological models—on water movement. We believe that we have one of the best understandings of flood movement and flood forecasting of any country in the world. The River Thames scheme is a £300 million scheme—a staggering sum of money. The Government are contributing £220 million directly to the area stretching down the Thames to Teddington. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise scientific or engineering issues, I am happy for her to do so offline—I am not sure that this is the appropriate debate—but we will provide better flood protection to approximately 15,000 homes and businesses in that area.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) raises interesting issues but, in this debate, I want to stay closely to the issues I have raised. I suspect we may have to have another debate to discuss Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs geomorphological studies.

[Rory Stewart]

I will take my hon. Friend’s invitation and put aside the additional measures that have been put in place. We will have other opportunities to talk about the Flood Re insurance scheme, of which we should be very proud, as he knows. We will have other opportunities to talk about sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS—which will make a huge difference, and other opportunities to talk about local flood risk management.

Surrey County Council has a good flood risk management strategy. It has published a new draft strategy, which my hon. Friend will have read, as I have, clarifying exactly the issues that interest him, which is the question of who is responsible for managing the risk. We have community flood plans within Spelthorne. Three are in place—Fordbridge Park, Wheatsheaf Lane and Sunbury Court Island—two are in progress and three more are coming. There will be a severe weather forum on 5 November, which he can attend. It is intended that communities will come forward with their plans and preparations.

My hon. Friend has an important point: it is the case that, in that flood, it does not seem that we can assign total responsibility to that sluice gate. It is not a main river section. Our modelling suggests that the sluice gate is not what led to the flooding in those houses. However, as he has pointed out, regardless of that case, there is an important hypothetical case. What happens if, in future, that sluice gate is genuinely essential to prevent flooding? I absolutely agree that we need to be much better at assigning responsibilities, as the Pitt review pointed out. That is particularly true because the causes of flooding are always complex and interdependent, and there is an enormous number of different people involved. Almost inevitably, we must have a system in which the county council, the district council, highways agencies and the Environment Agency have roles. Thames Water deals with sewerage. In that case, the asset was not primarily a flood asset but an aqueduct and drinking water asset.

As the flooding Minister, I am very aware that ultimately I have the responsibility for this and it is not enough simply to talk about a lot of agencies. We have to be clear about who does what when. My hon. Friend is right that that is particularly the case with what we call third-party assets such as sluices and aqueducts, which are owned and managed by others.

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has been a very important step forward in ensuring that we have a clear assignation of responsibilities, but I believe that such events illustrate that we still have more to do, and this is where I concede that my hon. Friend has raised an important point. We still have more to do as we must make it absolutely clear what will happen in such cases not just in Spelthorne but up and down the country. In this case, the Environment Agency is with us at the moment and I have had detailed discussions about Spelthorne with the agency partly as a result of the debate secured by my hon. Friend, so his constituents have reason to be grateful for his work on this.

It appears that we now have a clear protocol in place that sets a defined water level at which the sluice will be brought into operation. That has now been agreed with Thames Water. However, we will look very closely again at that protocol and will take this example as we go up and down the country to ensure that we are not stuck falling between two stools, which is a situation that we are often too close to.

In conclusion, let me express deep sympathy for those affected by flooding and recognise that recovery is a very long process for the people who were evacuated from their homes, who saw prized possessions destroyed and who went through fear and perturbation. In many cases, I have seen houses in Surrey to which people did not return for almost two years after the flooding occurred. They have lived elsewhere and have been through a truly terrible time.

With climate change, it is unfortunately very likely that we will see more of this in the future. The Government are investing unprecedented sums of money and we are putting £2.3 billion in capital investment into flood defences over the next six years. We will improve flood protection by 5% and 1,500 homes and businesses in the Thames area will be protected. I must thank the Environment Agency, Surrey County Council, the district council, our professional partners and Thames Water, which has looked closely at the subject.

We should not hide behind legal definitions. The challenge of accountability is absolutely central and we do not want to get into a world in which I perpetually appear here in Parliament saying that causes are very difficult and geomorphology is very difficult. It is easy for us to say, in some peculiar fashion, that these things are not really our responsibility and that even if they are, closing the sluice gate would not have made a difference, and even if we had wanted to close it perhaps we might not have been able to anyway. Generally, excuse is piled on excuse and we have to get much better at saying, “This is the person who is responsible,” and holding them accountable. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne for raising an issue that will, I hope, benefit not only his constituents but millions of people in the United Kingdom at a time of climate change.

Question put and agreed to.

Winter Flooding (Preparation)

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is perhaps appropriate, Mr Bone, that I bring this debate back to Hampshire, which is where it started, with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), whom I congratulate on leading it.

In Romsey and the Test valley villages last winter, there were many types of flooding. I did not even know about the whole range, which includes ground water, surface water and foul drainage flooding. Finally, the banks of the Fishlake stream and the River Test burst and there was a dramatic influx of water into people’s houses and businesses.

As many hon. Members have mentioned, all the agencies worked incredibly hard. I emphasise that in Romsey it really was a multi-agency approach, including the EA, the county council, the borough council, the town council and the surrounding parishes. The fire service did an absolutely cracking job at all times in Romsey. Eventually, the military responded in the face of a rising tide of water.

Southern Water struggled to tanker away the foul effluent in many cases where the drainage had been infiltrated with surface water, but it kept going. I have to mention the householders, who—

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I really do not have time. I am sorry, but I am left with a very few minutes to talk about flooding in Hampshire, which is where we started.

Householders were bringing out endless coffee and cakes for the tanker drivers, because they recognised that they were the people keeping the sewage out of their homes.

What of the aftermath? I thank the Minister for coming to Romsey last month to speak to residents and the EA, and to learn about the cat flap, which was a temporary structure that has now been removed, and about what could be done to protect the town and the surrounding villages and prevent the Test from causing future mayhem. The Minister’s Lib Dem colleagues, albeit at local council level, criticised his visit, describing it as a political stunt. I do not believe for a minute that it was. I put on record my thanks to him for coming and for his genuine interest.

Of course, the big question on everybody’s minds in Romsey is, what more needs to be done? I can tell the Minister that the Test is significantly higher today than when he visited last month and residents are extremely anxious as they look at the weather forecast and the rain. The EA has worked hard to repair the banks of the Fishlake stream and much work has been done in the villages to ensure that the water can flow more freely. In Stockbridge there is even a fully worked-up scheme that the local chamber of commerce assures me will cost only £50,000 to implement, but its question is, where is that money coming from? Southern Water has done some amazing work improving drainage networks. In one village alone, King’s Somborne, it spent £700,000, and it has worked on the pumping station in Longparish and improved the drains in Chilbolton.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned, the county council—I pay tribute to it, particularly for its work with the pathfinder project—has done sterling work in both the Test and Itchen catchment areas and worked hard with the Environment Agency, refining ideas and strategies ahead of the autumn statement.

I could praise the work of the insurance companies, which responded well at the time, but of course now residents have the problem of high renewals and high excesses: £25,000 in some cases. The promised Flood Re scheme seems to be a long time coming. The Minister heard residents mention that when he visited Romsey. They do not care whether the delay is with the insurance company or the Department; they just want it sorted.

The Minister will have understood from his visit that the Fishlake stream and the River Test pass through Greatbridge and behind the Budds Lane industrial estate. This was where the greatest impact was felt by householders and businesses. The cat flap was only a temporary structure. Residents want to understand who is responsible for a permanent measure, who will fund it and, importantly, when it might happen. I share their desire for answers.

The Causeway is the only access to the Southern Water pumping station. If that fails and is inaccessible, the sewage in Romsey backs up very quickly and it emerges in people’s houses in Riverside gardens, in Middlebridge street, and in sheltered accommodation at Bridge court. We heard about the cost-benefit ratio. There may not be a massive population here, but these are people’s homes and their livelihoods—their very existence—and I cannot begin to describe how unpleasant it is for people to be knee-deep in sewage in their own kitchen. There has to be recognition that that pumping station and its access is of strategic importance to the town.

I would like to hear from the Minister an assurance that the Test valley, although not as glamorous as Windsor and not as badly hit as Somerset, has not been forgotten and that he understands the problem and, following his visit, will do his best to convince the Chancellor that it deserves the sort of funding needed to prevent the dreadful experience of last winter.

Flooding (Staines-upon-Thames)

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House the matter of flooding and the River Ash in Staines-upon-Thames. The incident, which took place this February, was a significant development that caused a great deal of discomfort and inconvenience to my constituents.

I want to discuss why parts of Spelthorne were flooded during the winter and to examine why particular events happened in the way that they did. I also want to consider a question relating to the local statutory water undertaker, Thames Water. I must forcefully express that it is not my intention to apportion blame. I simply want to air the concern for the public record and to attempt to get more public scrutiny of a very important issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for making time to respond to the debate and I hope that he will help to elucidate the Government’s position about the situation and the regulation of our water companies more generally.

The River Thames, as many people know, runs the entire length of my constituency and is fed by a number of tributaries that dissect the area. It is a great blessing and a matter of great pride, and it affords recreation and enjoyment, but unfortunately when flooding occurs it can be very inconvenient. Such inconvenience does not happen every year or even every five years. It is rare, but when it does happen it is particularly frustrating and often dangerous.

The Thames burst its banks in places this year as water levels reached heights not seen since the great floods of 1947. Although record rainfall contributed to those events, as we all know, there are certain more specific questions about why some places were more affected by flooding than others. Residents express a variety of opinions about the nature of the flooding, but there are suspicions in particular about the maintenance of the infrastructure and whether the failure to close a particular sluice gate, for whatever reason—I am not blaming anyone—might have exacerbated the flooding of the River Ash over the weekend of 8 February through to Wednesday of the next week, when the sluice gate was shut.

In order to try to get to the bottom of this, we need to look back at what happened in 2003, because, as people will appreciate, a protocol was established by the Environment Agency to prevent the River Ash from flooding; when there is a threat that water in the Thames Water aqueduct will overflow into it there has to be a plan, and a protocol has been put in place to deal with that eventuality. When the River Thames reaches a certain level, water backs up in the River Colne and then spills over into the Staines aqueduct at locations some distance from Staines. The water is then channelled by the aqueduct towards the town. If the aqueduct is full, water can spill over into the River Ash. The 2003 protocol says clearly that Thames Water—the regulated company—should pump water out of the aqueduct at the Crooked Billet pumping station when that threat exists and if that does not work, sluice gate 8 at Moor lane should be shut. That arrangement has been expressly put in place to prevent water from spilling over and putting between 50 and 500 homes at risk of flooding. The protocol was clear but in February, for whatever reason, it was not adhered to. As I understand it, Thames Water had legitimate concerns about shutting the sluice gate—so it says—and that should be investigated. I am keen to stress that I am not here to apportion any blame; I simply want to raise the matter so that the Minister can respond to legitimate concerns expressed to me by my constituents.

On Saturday 8 February, the pumping of water out of the Staines aqueduct was operating at full capacity but that failed to stop water overflowing into the River Ash. The flood incident duty officer’s log, which was released as a result of a freedom of information request, shows clearly that the Environment Agency invoked the 2003 protocol at 6.25 pm that day. On Sunday 9 February, the Environment Agency repeatedly asked Thames Water to lower sluice gate 8 to prevent water from flowing from the Staines aqueduct into the River Ash. This information has all been obtained through an FOI request by residents who are rightly concerned and have come together to form an action group to find out more about what happened. That request on the Sunday to lower the sluice gate was not adhered to; Thames Water had its own reasons for not complying with it. After 5 pm on Sunday, residents in Leacroft in Staines noticed that their street was starting to flood, and Environment Agency telemetry data show that water levels rapidly rose after 11 pm that day.

Early on Monday morning, at 1 am, the Environment Agency learned that sluice gate 8 was not operating. We are led to believe that a bit later—at 7.35 am—the Environment Agency raised the prospect of calling in the Army to shut the gate. At 10 pm, Surrey police informed residents in Greenlands road and Leacroft to evacuate their homes. The idea that in this day and age the police should be telling residents of Staines, a highly residential area, that they should evacuate their homes does not do us proud as a nation—people should not have to experience this. Clearly, by 10 pm on Monday, the situation was very serious. On Tuesday, Thames Water sent contractors with heavy equipment to the sluice gate, which, as I understand it, was not working. In the early hours of Wednesday, Thames Water finally closed the gate by 1 metre—it did not close it entirely. As soon as that happened, residents observed that water levels began to recede rapidly. On the morning of Thursday 13 February, the floodwater had disappeared.

Over the course of four days, from Sunday through to Wednesday, the floodwaters had entered approximately 50 homes, and damaged hundreds more properties. At the time, workmen complained about the growth of vegetation on the machinery of the sluice gate. Residents are rightly infuriated by events, and it is their concern and anger that has led me to raise the matter in this public way on the Floor of the House. It is quite right that residents should feel aggrieved. They have been forced to leave their homes for six months to allow repair work to be done. It is difficult now, even three months afterwards, to work out where responsibility lies. Clearly, quite difficult and traumatic events took place, but the reasons for why they happened and how blame should be apportioned remain obscure, which is why it was incumbent on me to raise them as a matter of public concern.

We understand that flooding is being deemed a natural event by the insurance companies, which are already putting up people’s home insurance premiums. A direct financial penalty is being put on people as a consequence of this flooding. The reasons why the sluice gate was not shut remain unclear. As I have said, I have no wish to apportion blame, but we must investigate the matter and understand why the sluice gate did not operate in the way that it should have done so that we can answer the question about whether or not the flooding was a natural event. If it could be found that there was some human error, or that something or someone prevented the sluice gate from being shut, then the flooding was not a natural act, but a human one.

Other parts of my constituency were badly affected not just by water flooding but by sewage flooding, which is related to flooding infrastructure and the roles of the regulator, Ofwat, and the water supplier, Thames Water, and those are other issues that we need to look into. As I have said, I am not trying to apportion blame; I am just saying that this is something that we, as parliamentary representatives, should be seriously investigating.

Areas of my constituency that were affected include Wheatsheaf lane, Garrick close and Laleham road in Staines, and Old Charlton road and Charlton road in Shepperton. Sewage flooding can happen for lots of reasons. It happens when the sewerage systems are very old or poorly maintained. As soon as we have any flooding, the water gets into the sewerage system and pumps are not able to remove foul water from people’s houses. There is no reason why people should have to put up with that in 2014. Our drainage and sewerage systems should be able to cope under immense strain and really adverse weather conditions. No one in this country should have to endure the difficulties and health risks that people in my constituency endured in the early months of this year.

We have to look at the investment that Thames Water and other companies have put in to maintain the infrastructure. Our ability to hold these private bodies to account is at the centre of the issues that I am raising. People know that I believe—probably more passionately than any other Member—that privatisation can be a very good thing. The privatisation of the water companies was broadly successful, but even those of us who supported the privatisation of utility companies have to recognise the crucial role for regulation, because of the monopoly that such companies have—people have little choice about who supplies their water. I have always supported and argued passionately for free enterprise, but I have always believed that if we are to have regulated industries, they should be regulated properly. Ofwat and other such bodies should be given sufficient teeth to regulate and discipline those companies.

I am sure that the nature of Ofwat’s relationship with the water companies will be the subject of many debates, but in September 2013 Thames Water submitted an application to Ofwat to hike its prices by 8% in 2014-15. That application was blocked in November last year because the regulator felt that the company had made substantial savings and should be able to use those savings for reinvestment. In the event, in a compromise, Thames Water put up its prices by 4.1%. The average household water bill was £357 in 2013-14. This year, 2014-15, it will be £370. That is the broader question about the regulation of monopoly industries that I wanted to raise briefly.

I have my own view of what happened in Spelthorne earlier this year. I am firmly of the view that the impact of the floods—even though they were a natural event—was exacerbated by a degree of underinvestment in key infrastructure. I am open to evidence, advice and discussion, but I share my constituents’ opinion. The water companies have a duty to local residents and it is vital that they deliver a good service. Most importantly, it is vital that they earn the trust of their customers, and the only way to do that is to look more closely at the role of the regulators and perhaps give them more enforcement powers to regulate the industries that they have so far capably regulated.

Flooding

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I am also very pleased to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), even though we have different views on airport expansion. We are not speaking about that issue today, so we can come together with a degree of comradeship and co-operation.

I am also pleased to speak on behalf of people who live by the River Thames. Pictures have been shown and seen around the world of massive flooding and a considerable amount of devastation in the Thames valley. I know that it is fashionable in this House to suggest that action was taken only when the Thames itself was flooding, but as a Member of Parliament representing a Thames-side seat I have to say that a considerable number of families and a large number of properties were materially affected by the flooding. It is absolutely right that attention should be given to the issue.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who came to Guildford street, and saw for himself the problems caused by flooding. In Shepperton, in the south of my constituency, there was a considerable amount of flooding. It is a testament to the people of Spelthorne, who have created a thriving community, that there was so much resilience. Time and again, I spoke to people who were not expecting massive amounts of aid or of intervention. They appreciated that the borough’s resources were stretched, and that the EA and other organisations were under a great deal of pressure. I was impressed by their sheer resilience in managing to deal with a lot of the problems that they faced.

As for Staines and other areas in my constituency, the problem was not so much—other Members have alluded to this—the rising river level but the problems associated with groundwater, drainage and sewerage. That had a material effect on the—

[Bob Stewart]

The water table.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Indeed. That really affected people’s lives, and down Guildford street, Garrick close and other places in Staines and beyond, people have had to put up with roads that are waterlogged and flooded with contaminated water. That is the situation that I want to bring to the attention of the Government and of the House. It is quite wrong that in 21st-century Britain people should have to put up with that for weeks. Even now, the chances are that it will be another couple of weeks before the groundwater is cleared. That is something that the Government should consider seriously in formulating policy in future.

People have tried in this debate to make political points about reduced Government expenditure. We all know that, according to the Darling plan of 2010, the DEFRA capital budget would be reduced by up to 50%. We all know that there are responsible people in the Labour party who realise that there was a deficit and, regardless of who won the general election, accept that there would have to be reductions in expenditure. I do not think that it is responsible of Opposition Members to blame the Government for the cuts because, according to the previous Chancellor’s own plan, there would be severe reductions in the budget.

[Hugh Bayley]

If it is right for the Government to cut the budget to below what it was when they came to office, why is it right for them to propose in two years’ time to increase the budget to more than it was when they came into office?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that in 2010 we had a budget deficit that we had to reduce. That was clearly the plan on both sides of the House, and it is a cheap political point to blame the Government in that respect.

[Hugh Bayley]

rose—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

No, I am not going to give way, as there is intense pressure on time. I want to conclude by saying that I think that the Government have responded quite effectively to what was an unprecedented situation that was not at all expected. I look forward to working more with members of the Government in future to try to alleviate the problem and see how we can deal with it more efficiently next time, if there should be a next time.

Food Prices and Food Poverty

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady clearly was not listening to what I said about the continuation of the Healthy Start campaign, for example. Of course, in any big society, there is no finite amount of contribution that each of us might make to the more vulnerable; there is no need to put a limit on it.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the moves that the Government are making, such as freezing council tax and cutting fuel duty? That has made general inflation a much more manageable phenomenon for ordinary families.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Not at this precise point; the right hon. Lady is speaking to the motion.