Flooding

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the recent severe weather which has caused widespread and distressing flooding of homes, businesses and farmland; praises the work of communities, the Environment Agency, the Armed Forces, the emergency services and local councils in assisting those affected; calls on the insurance industry to ensure pay-outs are made as quickly as possible; recognises that continued support will be needed for the communities and businesses affected in the months ahead as homes and infrastructure are repaired; acknowledges the clear scientific evidence that climate change is contributing to the increased frequency of severe weather and the consequent risk of flooding; notes the advice from the Committee on Climate Change that current and planned levels of investment are insufficient to manage future flood risk given the increased threat from climate change; calls for further reports on the implementation of the recommendations contained in Sir Michael Pitt’s report into the 2007 floods to be made to Parliament; and supports cross-party talks on the impact of climate change and the funding and policy decisions necessary to mitigate the consequences of more frequent severe weather on communities and the economy.

For two and a half months, Britain has faced some of the most extreme weather since records began. We have experienced the wettest start to a year, the biggest tidal surges and the highest waves ever recorded. As a consequence, 6,480 homes have been flooded, farms have disappeared under water and businesses have been forced to close. For those who have been forced from their homes or seen their houses stripped of ruined carpets, furniture and possessions, this has been an horrendous experience. The stress of finding alternative accommodation and ensuring that the kids can get to school and that jobs are held down, while cleaning up and battling with insurance companies, will have been the nightmare start to the year that has faced many families.

The whole House will want to pay tribute to the tireless and ongoing work, over recent weeks, of the armed forces, the fire and rescue services, the police, the Environment Agency and local authority staff. I have seen for myself in Somerset and Cornwall how our public services have done an incredible job in difficult circumstances. They have worked alongside local communities and with the help of many volunteers to keep people safe and minimise the damage to property.

Governments cannot control the weather, and what the country has experienced in recent weeks has been exceptional. However, communities expect their Government to be prepared for the consequences of severe weather, and when it occurs, they expect a rapid response from the Government and help to arrive swiftly. Sadly, this was not the experience of many communities over Christmas and new year. The Government’s initial response to the floods was too slow and unco-ordinated. For too long, there appeared to be a complete failure to understand the full scale of the situation that was unfolding. I am afraid that that was typified by the belated visit of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Somerset levels at the end of January. More than a month after the waters rose and homes and farmland were flooded, he took the decisive step of ordering a report to be on his desk within six weeks.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady praise the generosity of farmers and hunts, not just in Leicestershire but throughout other parts of England, who have been sending hay, haylage, straw and other types of animal fodder to affected farmers? That has been a huge volunteer effort, and I hope that she will acknowledge it.

[Maria Eagle]

I am happy to acknowledge the support that has been given in the manner that the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets out to the House.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady said that the Government, or the country, was not properly prepared for the incidents that we faced. If she had come to my constituency, she would have seen that only prompt action by the fire brigade, the Army, the emergency services and the Environment Agency stopped a disaster. It is unfair and unfounded to say that the plans that were put in place and implemented amounted to a lack of preparation.

[Maria Eagle]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about his experience in his constituency. I did not say that there was no support or preparation, but the Government did not act in the requisite fashion to deal with the seriousness of the situation in many places.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the slow and belated but ultimately welcome response. Is not the danger that, now that the national media circus has moved on and the visiting Ministers have gone away, the Somerset levels are still under water and both of our main rail connections from the south-west to the rest of the country are still severed, and likely to be so for several more weeks? We need sustained and comprehensive attention and policies to address flood risk and flood management in the long term.

[Maria Eagle]

I acknowledge the truth of what my right hon. Friend said. Of course, it is the job of Her Majesty’s Opposition to try to make sure that the Government realise that need as much as we do. I am sure that we will seek to do that.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that her right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is sitting next to her, instigated the Pitt review, from which came the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which this Government have implemented in large measure? Surely, there should be a much more cohesive view across the House that we put in place the gold command structures that the review required and carried out Exercise Watermark precisely for this scenario. Many houses in constituencies such as mine were protected precisely because we followed through those recommendations.

[Maria Eagle]

I acknowledge that good work was done in the Pitt review to set out what the country needed to do. However, I am not convinced that the Pitt review has been fully implemented. Indeed, the Government laid before the House in, I think, January 2012 what they called a final progress report on the Pitt review, whereas it acknowledges that 46 recommendations––that is half of them––have not yet been implemented. One of the things that I would like the Minister to deal with is whether we can have further updates, so that we can be clear about the Government’s view on whether the Pitt review has now been fully implemented.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I do not believe that the Pitt review has been properly answered. I have tabled 10 parliamentary questions on its recommendations and intend to table another 84 to flush the issue out. Here are a couple of the answers I have had already:

“I have made no assessment of local authority leaders’ or chief executives’ effectiveness”.—[Official Report, 13 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 800W.]

That was recommended by Pitt, but not implemented.

“There have been no discussions with the Association of British Insurers or other relevant organisations”. —[Official Report, 12 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 661W.]

That was recommended by Pitt, but not implemented. Those are just two of the recommendations that have not been implemented.

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point and perhaps in due course—either during this debate or thereafter—we can have a better understanding and, I hope, a shared understanding across the House about what has and has not been completed in respect of Pitt.

For weeks after this crisis arose, Ministers refused to accept the need for additional funding; they refused to accept the serious situation facing many farmers, who had seen their land submerged and their livestock displaced; they refused to accept that the Government had a duty to act regardless of whether official requests from councils had been received; they refused to countenance the mobilisation of the armed forces; they refused to act on council tax, having changed the law to abolish automatic exemptions; and they refused to accept the need to act on insurance payouts. Instead, despite meeting after meeting of Cobra, very little action seemed to result.

It is clear that that situation was not helped by the confusion about who has been in charge of the Government’s response. It is hardly the Environment Secretary’s fault that he was forced to step back from the front line, and I know that the whole House wishes him well as he continues on his road to recovery. However, we then faced a period of chaos as the Communities Secretary took charge for a few slightly misjudged and disastrous hours, before he was banned from the airwaves. The Defence Secretary was then dispatched to repair all the damage caused by the Communities Secretary’s blundering, and then the Transport Secretary appeared to become the fourth member of the Cabinet to be put in charge of the Government’s response. Then, in the past few days, we have finally seen a blitz of public relations initiatives and some welcome extra money as the Prime Minister, having woken up late to the impact of the severe floods, decided that he had better take charge of the response himself.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, was my hon. Friend also confused, as I was, by the Prime Minister’s visit to Pembrokeshire, when it was not clear whether the funding that he announced there even applied to Wales? Also, will she join me in commending the work of the Welsh Labour Government in protecting flood defences, flood staff and flood funding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I will indeed join my hon. Friend in respect of the latter point. I must also say that I was a little concerned that, for once, the Prime Minister’s reputation for being an expert on PR and spin seemed to have gone a little bit wrong when he turned up in Wales to announce an initiative that did not apply to Wales. Perhaps that will give my hon. Friend a strong argument to go back to the Prime Minister to ask him whether that initiative will now apply to Wales.

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

I welcome the call in the motion for

“cross-party talks on the impact of climate change”,

and I very much hope that the smaller parties will be included in those cross-party talks. Does the hon. Lady agree that protecting UK citizens from the worst of climate change means that we need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground and that the last thing we should be doing is exploring for yet more sources of oil and gas, whether or not that includes shale gas?

[Maria Eagle]

I will say a little about climate change later in my remarks, but the hon. Lady has certainly made her point.

After the Prime Minister became involved, one by one the measures that had been resisted for weeks have finally been announced: vital assistance from the armed forces; funding to help households, businesses and farms, although much of the detail needs to be clarified; council tax exemptions, after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition forced a welcome U-turn; and a hastily convened meeting with the insurance industry, although it is far from clear what that meeting has delivered in terms of faster payouts. Those measures should have been put in place when the water levels first rose, at the end of last year.

A great many questions still need to be answered about the assistance that is available. For example, the Business Secretary has suggested that VAT on flood repairs should be reduced. Perhaps the Communities Secretary can clarify matters and say whether that suggestion is now Government policy, or was it just being floated as part of the Liberal Democrats’ so-called differentiation strategy?

After the floods of 2007, half of those who were forced to leave their homes were back in them within six months, yet many of those people had to wait much longer for the money needed to sort out the damage. I hope that the Communities Secretary will update the House on what discussions with the insurance industry have led to. In particular, can he say whether the Government agree with the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a new industry standard, because taking 12 months to complete a claim seems far too long?

There is still a lack of clarity on the time scale for restoring the rail link between Exeter and Newton Abbot, following the collapse at Dawlish. Initially, it was claimed that the work could be completed within six weeks, but now we are told that the line may not reopen until mid-April. With up to £20 million a day being lost by businesses, I hope that the Communities Secretary will provide an update on efforts to achieve an earlier reopening of this vital transport link.

We have heard nothing from Ministers on what specific steps the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking to help our fishing fleets, particularly in the south-west. Many fishermen have been unable to work since Christmas and consequently now face a desperate financial crisis. After two months of no fishing, damaged boats and lost equipment, the Communities Secretary will, I hope, provide some clarity on what help will be available to that vital British industry.

There are growing concerns about the impact on the tourism industry, which is vital for the economy of the south-west in particular. It is reported that a quarter of all tourism operators have experienced cancellations, and 40% have seen fewer forward bookings during a vital period for organising summer breaks. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is responding to the debate, can set out what the Government have done to ensure that people are aware that all parts of Britain are open for business.

Ministers continue to be silent about whether or not an application is to be made to the European Union solidarity fund. After the 2007 floods, the previous Government successfully secured £110 million as a contribution to the cost of recovery. After the UK special abatement mechanism, the net value is £31 million. Considering that that is more than the total extra money announced for this year, it is surprising that securing that funding does not appear to be a priority. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure the House that some kind of anti-EU political dogma is not standing in the way. We look forward to hearing what he can tell us about what is going on.

The Government were caught sleeping on the job when the severe weather first hit the country in December, but the roots of this failure go back to the ill-judged decision made by the Government after the 2010 election significantly to reduce the funding available for flood protection. The budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had to be cut, but it is a question of what the priorities ought to be. A decision was made to target the flood defences budget, despite all the evidence that investing in flood defences saves more than it costs.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will not give way. I have given way on a number of occasions, and I want to make progress.

This reckless short-termism is set to cost the country more than the cuts were intended to save. The Pitt review commissioned by Labour after the 2007 floods made it clear that investment in flood protection needed to rise, and by time of the 2010-11 Budget set by Labour, funding had gone up from £500 million a year to £670.1 million, yet by 2011-12, in the first Budget set by the coalition Government, that had been cut to £573 million, which is a reduction of £97 million—a 17% real-terms cut.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No, I want to make a little progress.

The budget has remained the same since then, meaning further significant real-terms cuts, year on year. Taking into account the extra funding announced this month, there will still be £64 million less available for flood protection this year than in 2010. The figure is £606 million now, compared with the £670 million available under the previous Government. The chief executive of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Nick Baveystock, said in the past day that this level of spending

“provided neither the level of investment nor long-term certainty required to improve resilience against flooding... This under-spend has been detrimental to communities, business and infrastructure”.

The Government’s decision to reduce the commitment to flood protection was a deliberate one. When the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rewrote his Department’s core list of priorities on taking office, he chose to remove the priority to

“prepare for and manage risk from flooding.”

He then stated in front of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that he had ordered civil servants to use his new priorities, which no longer included flood risk, when applying spending reductions within his Department. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, continue to claim that more is being spent on flood protection in this Parliament than in the previous one. In real terms, that is nonsense. Thanks to the complaint from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) to the UK Statistics Authority, we now have an independent view on the Government’s claims. Andrew Dilnot said:

“Our analysis...supports the conclusion that the statement ‘over the current spending review period, more is being spent than ever before’ is supported by the statistics if the comparison is made in nominal terms and includes external funding, but is not supported by the statistics if the comparison is made in real terms or if external funding is excluded.”

That is categorical, so I hope that the Communities Secretary will apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister and all those Ministers who have repeatedly sought to misrepresent the truth on spending on flood defences. As the UK Statistics Authority has stated, the Government like to include external funding in its figures, or “partnership funding” as it calls it.

The figure that Ministers quote is £148 million, yet thanks to a recent parliamentary answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), the Government have been forced to admit that there is an £80.4 million black hole in this total because they have failed to secure the contributions anticipated. I hope that the Communities Secretary can update the House on how that will be filled.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on that point. Match funding is important in this. Last night, North Lincolnshire council set its budget, in which the Conservative-led council added £5 million for flood defences along the Trent and the Humber. Can she tell me why Labour councillors voted against that budget and that funding?

[Maria Eagle]

I hope that if the Minister, whose parliamentary answer I am quoting from, has updated figures, he will provide them to the House when he replies to the debate.

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

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

The reductions to flood defence spending were not just numbers on a spreadsheet, but actual planned flood defence projects.

[Henry Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No, not at this time. [Interruption.] I have given way relatively generously, so I do not think I should be criticised for saying no on one occasion.

In total, 290 shovel-ready flood defence projects were cancelled and 966 delayed as a result of those decisions. Appallingly, these appear to have included 13 schemes along the Thames and 67 in the south-west. Does not that highlight the cost of the Government’s misguided approach? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also cut more than 40% from his Department’s budget for domestic climate change initiatives last year. Therefore, just 0.7% or £17.2million of the Environment Department’s budget is now dedicated to preparing or adapting Britain for the impact of climate change, and his is the lead Department. Of course, we only know this thanks to an freedom of information request, because the Secretary of State sought to disguise the cut by lumping it in with the funding to meet our obligations to the international climate fund.

Before these floods hit, Ministers were about to make yet another ill thought through decision that would have reduced the country’s ability to cope with major flood incidents. In addition to the 600 Environment Agency staff lost since 2010, we know from leaked briefings that a further 557 flooding staff were due to be cut this year. The Prime Minister has said that

“those aren’t plans that are going to be put in place”.

Yet it is far from clear whether this means that there will be no further job losses in the agency, or whether the commitment relates only to those working directly on flood protection. Neither is it clear for how long this commitment remains valid. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the situation and give us some further information on this.

There have been some disgraceful attempts by Ministers to place the blame for some of these decisions at the door of the Environment Agency, not least by the Communities Secretary himself. Yet, as the chairman of the Environment Agency has made clear,

“a limit on the amount we can contribute to any individual scheme, determined by a benefit-to-cost rule imposed on us by the Treasury”

was placed on the agency.

I hope that the Communities Secretary will take the opportunity to confirm that the cost-benefit ratio rules imposed on flood defence schemes will be reviewed. I hope that he will also accept, in hindsight, that Ministers should not have sought to evade responsibility for their own decisions.

The Pitt review set out 92 separate recommendations, all but one for the Government, and significant progress on their implementation was being made at the time of the last election, yet when this Government came to office in 2010, some recommendations that had been implemented were reversed. The Cabinet committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding and the national resilience forum were both abolished. Then in January 2012, the Government published what was entitled a “final progress report”, despite 46 recommendations not having been fully implemented. We urgently need clarity on the progress—or lack of it—that has been made since January 2012. I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider his previous refusal to agree to our call for a new update to be brought before Parliament.

The Government have demonstrated a complete lack of urgency in securing the legal basis for the proposed flood reinsurance scheme. Thanks to three years of inaction from Ministers, this scheme will not be in place until 2015 at the earliest. As we have warned throughout the passage of the Water Bill, which is still being considered in another place, the scheme is deeply flawed. In Committee, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of this House voted down Labour amendments to improve the Bill. Those amendments included requiring Ministers to consult the Committee on Climate Change on the number of properties that might need to be added to the scheme in future; incentivising owners of at-risk properties to invest in flood protection measures; enabling people to search whether or not a property is included in the scheme; and establishing an appeal mechanism for those excluded—all measures opposed by the Government.

A balance has to be struck, of course, between the cost of the levy on other households and the scope of the scheme. However, the significant number of exemptions from the scheme continues to be of real concern and controversy, not least for tenants and leaseholders. In the light of the recent floods and the fact that the Water Bill has not completed its passage through both Houses, I hope that the Minister might consider agreeing to cross-party talks on those issues. It is vital that we ensure that the Flood Re insurance scheme is fit for purpose over the long term.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Maria Eagle]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to conclude my remarks.

I hope that the Government will also consider the call by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the national consensus on climate change to be rebuilt. The events of the past few weeks have shown that that is now a matter of national security, with people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods under threat from extreme weather. All the evidence points to that happening more frequently in future.

Before the last election, we were edging towards that consensus. The Stern report set out clearly the catastrophic impact on our economy of a failure to act on climate change. The Committee on Climate Change and carbon budgets was established. Targets to reduce emission were set. Investment in flood protection was rising. The leader of the Conservative party was hugging huskies and pledging to lead the greenest Government ever.

Just three years later, however, the progress that was being made appears to have stalled and the Prime Minister is allegedly wandering around Downing street talking of his wish to be rid of all this “green crap”. Tellingly, he has appointed an Environment Secretary who talks up the alleged benefits of climate change and refuses to be briefed on the subject by the Government’s scientific advisers.

We urgently need to re-establish the consensus on the threat to the UK of climate change. The science is clear. The evidence is overwhelming. The Committee on Climate Change warns that current planned funding will

“result in around 250,000 more households becoming exposed to a significant risk of flooding by 2035”.

These floods must be a wake-up call: a wake-up call on whether dedicating just 0.7% of DEFRA’s budget to climate change mitigation and adaptation makes sense ; a wake-up call on the folly of ignoring the impact of climate change in the Food Re insurance scheme; and a wake-up call on the consequences of cutting investment in flood protection. For the communities that have suffered such appalling flooding in recent weeks, that is the very least they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her Committee for all the work they have done on flood defences—

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

You were a member of it!

[Dan Rogerson]

Yes, I suppose I should admit to that. Sadly, I am no longer a member.

The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) about a statement is obviously a matter for the Leader of the House to consider, perhaps later this morning. On her questions on maintenance, given this year’s extreme weather events, the Government have made available a £130 million investment to ensure that we repair and maintain the existing flood defences, which of course will allow us to invest in new schemes in the coming year.

[Maria Eagle]

As I saw for myself in Somerset earlier this week, the severe floods are causing unimaginable distress for many people as they see their homes wrecked, farmland submerged and businesses suffer. As all the evidence suggests, and as the Minister has just accepted, climate change will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent, so will he explain why his Department has been forced to admit, thanks to a freedom of information request, that total spending on climate change mitigation and adaptation has been cut by more than 40% since last year?

[Dan Rogerson]

I suspect that the hon. Lady is referring to the freedom of information request submitted on behalf of Lord Lawson. I can confirm that total Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs climate change spending on mitigation and adaptation was £34.8 million in 2011-12, £49.2 million in 2012-13 and £47.2 million in 2013-14, and we have resources yet to be allocated in the coming financial year.

[Maria Eagle]

The figures for the domestic spend were £24.7 million in 2011-12 and £29.1 million in 2012-13, but that has decreased this year to £17.2 million, which is a 40% cut. The decision to cut the climate change mitigation and adaptation budget by 40% was a serious error of judgment, one that the events of the past weeks must lead the Government to reconsider. The Minister will know that funding for flood protection remains £63.5 million below 2010 levels, even after the additional funding announced last week. Will he now agree to review the stringent cost-benefit ratio of eight to one applied by his Department to flood defence spending, which appears to have prevented so many vital schemes from going ahead?

Flooding (Somerset)

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s recent response to the flooding in Somerset and what action the Government have taken following recent Cobra meetings.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to reply to this question. Let me begin by expressing my sympathy for the serious difficulties local residents face in Somerset as a result of the continuing widespread flooding of the moors and levels since late December, including impacts on properties, businesses, transport and farm land.

Recent Met Office figures show that Somerset received more rainfall in December and January than it would normally receive over an entire winter. The high tides experienced in early January and early February exacerbated the situation by preventing water from flowing out to sea, resulting in rivers overtopping their banks and flooding the surrounding land. Floodwater has covered more than 65 sq km on the levels and hundreds of people have been affected with about 21 properties still flooded. Some 200 people have been cut off in the villages of Muchelney, Thorney, Oath, Stathe and North Moor. I visited Somerset on Sunday 26 and Monday 27 January to witness the situation at first hand and listen to the views of local residents and experts.

On 26 January I held meetings with local MPs and the leader and chief executive of Sedgemoor district council as well as a range of local experts including farmers and representatives of the local internal drainage boards. I held further meetings on 27 January, including with the leader of the county council. We agreed to dredge the Tone and Parrett rivers and on the need for local organisations to come together on a partnership basis to fund the ongoing dredging and de-silting that would subsequently be needed.

We also discussed the potential for action to hold water back in the upper catchments and to consider a longer term project to create a River Parrett barrage. In the light of that visit I asked my officials to work with local authorities and other local partners in Somerset as well as the Environment Agency, Natural England and other Government Departments to develop an action plan over the next six weeks for the sustainable future of the moors and levels. On 29 January, the Prime Minister confirmed that dredging would take place on the moors and levels as soon as it was safe and practical to do so. This will build on the targeted dredging of the Tone and Parrett that the Environment Agency began in the autumn. It will build on what the Environment Agency already spends annually on flood risk management in Somerset and the £100,000 a week spent on pumping operations on the moors and levels.

Local authorities, residents and emergency services have been working around the clock to ensure that people are safe. The Environment Agency is carrying out the largest pumping operation ever undertaken on the levels. In addition to 40 permanent pumps, the Environment Agency has mobilised a further 22 temporary units increasing its ability to pump up by more than 150%. It is currently pumping 1 million tonnes a day.

I have chaired five meetings of Cobra since last Wednesday to ensure that the Government have fully considered how best we can meet the needs of the local communities affected while the floodwater remains. Following those meetings, the Government have taken a number of actions.

First, we have put arrangements in place to ensure that the local transport needs of the cut-off communities are met. The Environment Agency, Somerset county council and local responders under the leadership of the local gold command are working together and have a presence on the ground. I am grateful to those who have assisted with that—for example, the Red Cross provided a vehicle to deliver heavy goods and food and local fire and rescue services provided a ferry service. We have also considered how the military could be used to help on the ground and they remain on standby if needed.

Secondly, sewage and wastewater services are not available in some areas. Support has been provided to affected properties and all necessary mitigation measures have been put in place to guard against any public health risks of contaminated floodwater. As is normal practice, floodwater has been sampled by the local authority since the incident began and advice is being given regularly by the local authorities. I urge everyone in the affected area to heed the clear advice of Public Health England.

Since the beginning of last December, the UK as a whole has experienced a period of exceptionally unsettled weather and there is no sign at present of its abating. Many parts of the country have been subjected to flooding from the sea, rivers, surface water or ground water, and I am extremely grateful for the excellent response by the emergency services, the Environment Agency, and Flood Forecasting Centre staff, and the leadership shown by many local authorities in responding to the floods.

Latest estimates suggest that over 7,500 properties have been flooded since the beginning of December. However, existing defences and improvements to the way in which we respond to incidents meant that we could protect over 1.2 million properties from flooding in the same period. Some 87,500 properties are currently being protected. That reinforces the importance of continuing our investment in flood defence schemes and forecasting capability. I will chair a further meeting of Cobra to discuss our response to the flooding at 5 pm today.

[Maria Eagle]

This is an unimaginably stressful and distressing time for those in Somerset who have seen their homes and businesses ruined by floodwater, and more flooding has been reported in Devon and Cornwall this morning. The emergency services and Environment Agency staff deserve our thanks for their efforts on the ground in difficult conditions, yet despite those efforts it is clear that residents in Somerset have been badly let down. When the water first rose, it took far too long to provide the pumps, sandbags and other assistance they needed. We have seen meeting after meeting of Cobra, yet there is little coherence in the Government’s strategy for dealing with the crisis.

Will the Secretary of State set out what precise steps he took between 6 January this year, when he last reported to the House, and last weekend, when the Prime Minister was forced to intervene and tell him to get his skates on? Does he still think that calling for a report “within six weeks”, as he did when he visited Somerset last Monday, is an adequate response? The Prime Minister has said that

“dredging will start as soon as it is practical”.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that that is Government policy? I think I heard him say that some dredging took place on the levels this autumn. Will he confirm that my understanding of what he said in the statement is correct? Will he admit that he knew a year ago of the specific threat of serious flooding in the Somerset levels from the Association of Drainage Authorities, which warned of

“de-silting work on rivers in areas such as the Somerset Levels having all but ceased”,

and what did he do about it? Why did he remove the aim to

“prepare for and manage risk from flood and other environmental emergencies”

from his Department’s list of priorities when he got the job, replacing that with four of his own?

Is the Secretary of State still refusing to be briefed by his own chief scientific adviser on climate change and the implications for more extreme weather conditions? Will he confirm that he has had to correct previously published figures on flood prevention funding, contradicting his claims that the Government are spending more in this four-year period than in the previous four years? Will he admit that the corrected figures reveal that funding for flood protection has fallen from £670 million in 2010-11 to £576 million in the current financial year? Will he admit that £67.6 million of partnership funding has been raised since April 2011, not the £148 million that he repeatedly claims?

Finally, will the Secretary of State apologise to those affected by flooding in Somerset for the decision to use a premium rate number for the flooding helpline? Will he name the company that is making money from those who have already lost so much? The Prime Minister has now said the line will cease to be a premium rate line. When precisely will that happen?

The Prime Minister promised the Leader of the Opposition that the Secretary of State would come back to the House with a “full assessment” of levels of support for flood protection by the end of last month. He failed to do so. Does that not typify the Secretary of State’s whole response to the floods? After his botched badger cull and now his failure on flooding, it is no wonder that people are increasingly asking whether the Secretary of State is up to the job.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Cobra has met regularly since the Christmas period, and obviously the floods and levels were regularly mentioned. The first specific request was at last Wednesday’s Cobra, which was acted on immediately by Government agencies responding to Cobra.

The hon. Lady mentioned the six weeks. I described briefly the fact that I went down to Somerset the Sunday before last, had meetings on Sunday evening, meetings on Monday, and agreed, quite clearly, a plan, which had to be worked up in detail with the Environment Agency and with the internal drainage boards. That is a marked contrast with the previous Government, who sat on the Parrett catchment flood management plan way back in 2008 and did absolutely nothing about it.

We began dredging on key points. The hon. Lady goes on and on about DEFRA’s priorities. I boil DEFRA down to two simple priorities across a kaleidoscopic variety of activities: to grow the rural economy and to improve the environment. I cannot think of any activity that involves spending central Government money that better delivers those two key priorities than what we are doing on flood spending. That is why this Government will be spending £2.4 billion in the first four years of this Parliament compared with £2.2 billion in the last four years of the previous Parliament. The hon. Lady has to nod just once—just give one little nod—to confirm that Labour Members will back this Government’s growing spending plans on flood spending. For us, it is a priority; for them it is not. She has missed her chance, but there is still a chance. Will she please agree to match our increased spending plans for this Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, which is well worth the Welsh Government and the Welsh Secretary taking up. We are happy to help liaise with him, but ultimately we have to respect devolution, and if it is an issue of money for Wales, it is down to the Welsh Government to negotiate it.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

When he became Secretary of State in September 2012, the right hon. Gentleman reviewed his Department’s priorities. Why did his new list of four priorities make no reference to preparing for and managing risks from flood and other environmental emergencies, as the old list of priorities and responsibilities had done?

[Mr Paterson]

That gives me a perfect opportunity to explain the huge gain for the economy from our ambitious flood schemes. Very shortly after I took over, I met the noble Lord Smith, the chairman of the Environment Agency, at a brilliant £45 million scheme in Nottingham, which was not just protecting 12,000 houses but, on the other side of the river, freeing up a whole area of blighted land, which is now up for development.

My first priority is to grow the rural economy, and I am delighted to say that our ambitious schemes will help to do that. I just wish that, in her second question, the hon. Lady would say the Labour party endorse our plans.

[Maria Eagle]

When asked by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs where the £54 million of extra savings from his departmental budget announced by the Treasury in June 2013 would come from, he said:

“We will concentrate on my four priorities, so it is as simple as that. Pretty well every single activity in Defra has to be focused through those four priorities.”

Those priorities do not include flood protection. How can people facing an increasing risk of flood damage due to the effects of climate change have any confidence in a Secretary of State who has downgraded flood protection as a priority and thinks that climate change is benefiting Britain?

[Mr Paterson]

Dear, oh dear, this is lame stuff. We are spending £2.3 billion over the course of this Parliament, with £148 million of partnership money. We have an extra £5 million for revenue, and in the course of the recent reduction across Departments I specifically excluded flood defence, so the reduction is spread across the rest of DEFRA. Uniquely, we have a programme going right out to 2021, with £2.3 billion. Yet again—this is the fifth opportunity—the hon. Lady has not agreed to match our commitment. If you want flood defences, you vote Conservative.

Water Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

This Bill includes important reforms that build on three important reviews taken forward by the previous Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability and the Cave review on competition. It also follows on from the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that we took through Parliament before the last election. That is why the Opposition supported the Bill on Second Reading and will do so again on Third Reading this evening.

We have backed measures to increase competition, extending to non-domestic customers the opportunity to switch supplier. Such an opportunity is already enjoyed in Scotland where it has been shown to be successful in reducing costs to business. We support the reforms intended to encourage new entrants into the market, and we back regulatory reforms aimed at ensuring long-term resilience of our water supplies. We also support the measures, at long last, to provide a statutory basis for agreement on flood reinsurance, providing relief to those who live in hard-to-insure households.

However, there remains a major hole at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of the Government’s water policy. That is the absence of any serious attempt to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on household budgets, which is adding to the cost of living crisis. There is a real gulf between the rhetoric of the Government and the reality on this. Again, this evening, we have seen Government Members troop through the Lobby to stand up for the monopoly water companies, and against the interests of households. In his Second Reading speech, the Secretary of State assured the House:

“The package of reforms is designed to exert a sustained downward pressure on water bills”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 49-50.]

Yet, time after time the Government have opposed sensible amendments that would have ensured that that was a reality in this Bill. For all the briefing to newspapers back in October, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are simply unwilling to do anything that might be perceived as interfering in a market that they believe is working well. I do not believe that consumers agree that a monopoly industry that enabled companies last year to make pre-tax profits of £1.9 billion and pay out dividends totalling £1.8 billion to shareholders is a market that is working and adequately regulated.

Our reforms would have introduced a new national affordability scheme, requiring all water companies to help those struggling with their bills. That would have ended the current postcode lottery whereby companies choose whether to offer a social tariff and set the criteria for eligibility. Just three companies have introduced such a scheme, helping just 25,000 households. In their submissions to Ofwat for the next price review period from 2015, we see that there are still companies that do not intend to set a social tariff and that those that do are proposing to assist a relatively small number of customers.

Given that Ofwat estimates that 2.6 million households—11%—currently spend more than 5% of their income on water, it is clear that only a tiny fraction of those struggling are being helped. It is also clear that many customers do not know about even the help that is available. Only a third of eligible households access WaterSure, which was introduced by Labour to help households that have a high level of water use due to a medical condition or because they have three or more children. Yet the Government have opposed our proposal to require water companies to include information with bills about the help available to customers, just as they have consistently opposed forcing water companies to publish annual information, including on their corporate structure, and on their levels of investment, taxation and dividends paid to shareholders, and then enabling Ofwat to take full account of that information when determining whether to re-open price settlements and cut bills.

Finally, our proposed reforms would have tackled bad debt, which adds £15 to the average bill, by requiring landlords to provide water companies with details of their tenants on request. We sought to give Ofwat powers to ban water companies that fail to act on bad debt from transferring the cost of lost revenue from non-paying customers to other bill payers. By rejecting all of these sensible measures, Ministers have wasted the perfect opportunity that this Bill offered to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on stretched household budgets. Instead, the Government’s preferred approach has been to send just one weakly worded letter to water bosses, begging them not to hike bills next year, without even a threat of action if they do not comply. So while the water companies are doing very well from their monopoly position, customers in this country will continue to pay among the highest bills in Europe.

Disappointingly, Ministers have also not been more willing to listen to concerns raised on other aspects of the Bill during its passage through this House. The Government’s only concession has been a grudging acceptance that it is right to make it clearer to Ofwat that it must have a higher regard to the environment in the way that it regulates the industry. The Government’s compromise is to stick to their decision to elevate “resilience” rather than “sustainability” but to require Ofwat to

“secure resilience in sustainable ways”.

We will have to consider carefully whether that sends a clear enough signal or not.

Disappointingly, Ministers have not heeded the concerns about the total amount of water taken from the environment if upstream competition happens ahead of abstraction reform. I welcome the fact that the consultation on abstraction licence system reform was finally launched just before recess, but, on the Government’s own timetable, reforms will not be implemented until the early 2020s, and upstream competition is due to begin in 2019.

Finally, it is disappointing that Ministers have rejected each of the sensible and modest proposals to improve the Flood Re scheme. The Secretary of State will have today heard the clear warnings from Sir David King, the Government’s special envoy on climate change, that changes to the climate will lead to

“quite a radical change in weather conditions”

and more frequent severe flooding. Requiring the Committee on Climate Change regularly to advise on the increase in the number of properties likely to be at risk of flooding as a result and the consequence for the Flood Re scheme was surely a sensible move, yet it has been rejected by the Government.

Similarly, it is difficult to see how the Government could have had any serious objections to strengthening incentives for the uptake of household flood protection measures—providing a right of appeal for those who find that their property has been removed from the scheme, allowing a right of public access to any Flood Re insurance database and publishing figures for the number of properties in the categories to be excluded from the scheme.

This Bill contains important reforms, but it remains seriously flawed as it leaves this House; flawed because it does not sufficiently protect the environment; flawed because the Flood Re insurance scheme will not be in place until 2015 but also remains disconnected from future increases in at-risk properties as a result of our changing climate; flawed because it has failed to toughen the powers of the regulator to cut bills; flawed because it leaves it to the water companies to decide whether to establish a social tariff and preserves the postcode lottery on eligibility; and flawed because it does nothing to protect customers who pay their bills from seeing higher charges as a result of those who can pay but will not. This Bill could have delivered a framework for that new deal with the water companies. Instead, a huge opportunity to tackle water’s contribution to the cost of living crisis has been missed.

Flooding

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for updating the House at the earliest opportunity following the recess on the latest situation regarding the floods. I join him in expressing our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who have died. Our thoughts are also with the thousands of people affected. This is the worst series of winter storms to hit Britain in more than 20 years, so I also join the Secretary of State and I am sure Members on both sides of the House in thanking Environment Agency staff and the emergency services for their work over the past fortnight, since this period of extreme weather began.

Despite all the efforts of agencies and local government staff, however, it is clear that some communities have faced delays and difficulty in securing the help they need. The Prime Minister heard the criticisms for himself when he visited Yalding in Kent, which suffered severe flooding and where more than 100 homes had to be evacuated. One resident told him:

“We were literally abandoned… We had no rescuers, nothing for the whole day… The Environment Agency said it was up to the council and when I did get through to the council they said if you need sandbags, get your own. On Christmas Day we saw absolutely no one.”

Another resident said:

“The people he’s talking to, the Environment Agency and so on, weren’t here… I swam this road on Christmas Day pulling people out on my own. There was no one here on Christmas Day or Boxing Day.”

The Prime Minister was filmed next to an inflatable boat on his visit, but journalists reported that it had been ferried in 10 minutes before and departed soon after he left. Those affected by these floods do not need stunts or the buck-passing we heard from the Environment Secretary when he put the blame on staff absent over Christmas. They want to know that lessons are to be learned about why some communities faced significant delays in securing the help they needed, and they want to know why lessons do not appear to have been learned from previous flooding incidents, despite all the promises from Ministers at the time.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has promised a review to ensure that lessons are learned, but can the Secretary of State assure the House and those forced from their homes that it will begin as soon as the current severe weather has subsided, and will he set out a clear time frame for when it will be concluded? Will he commit to returning to the House to make a further statement on its conclusions? Will he confirm that the review will focus specifically on preparedness for days such as Christmas day and Boxing day, including appropriate staffing levels, especially when storms are predicted?

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the review looks at whether there is sufficient clarity in the division of responsibilities among councils and the Environment Agency? Will the remit be wide enough to look at the performance of the energy companies? As he said, some companies clearly have serious questions to answer about the unacceptable delays in reconnecting homes, which ruined Christmas for many families, and it is also not clear that the Government acted with as much speed and firmness as they should have done in pressing those companies to act.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the review looks specifically at decisions taken on flood defence expenditure since 2010? His Department’s own figures, verified by the House of Commons Library, which I have here, show that expenditure on flood protection has fallen in real terms from £646 million in 2010 to £527 million this year and will be £546 million by 2015, meaning that we will be spending £100 million a year less at the end of this Parliament than at its start. Will the review therefore look at whether the right choices were made over how best to implement reductions to the Department’s budget, particularly in the light of the Environment Agency’s estimate that every pound invested in flood defences saves the country as much as £8 in flood damage?

Does the Secretary of State still believe that no other areas of his Department’s budget or those of its 28 arm’s length bodies were a lower priority than flood defences when it came to making decisions on reducing spending? Does that include, for example, the £7.3 million he spent in recent months on his failed unscientific cull of badgers—£4,100 for each animal killed?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will consider the warning from the chief executive of the Environment Agency that

“Flood risk maintenance will be impacted”

by further planned budget and staffing reductions? In the meantime, will he reassure those living in areas at risk of flooding that, despite these warnings, he is confident that he can deliver the cuts in a way that will not reduce the Environment Agency’s ability to protect homes and businesses and respond when floods hit?

Will the Secretary of State reassure us that his failure to protect flood defence expenditure over other potential cuts has nothing to do with his personal scepticism about climate science? Has the Secretary of State listened to Sir David King, the Government’s special envoy on climate change, who has today again warned that

“storms and severe weather conditions that we might have expected to occur once in 100 years, say, in the past may now be happening more frequently....and the reason is—as predicted by scientists—that the climate is changing and as the climate changes we can anticipate quite a radical change in weather conditions.”

In the light of that clear warning, does the Secretary of State stand by his view that climate change will benefit the UK because of warmer winters? Will he now listen to the advice from his own independent advisers—the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change—who wrote to him towards the end of last year to express concern that his flood reinsurance scheme misses simple measures that would reduce cost, increase value for money and cope with increasing flood risk?

Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman look again at Labour’s amendments to the flood reinsurance scheme, which Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members opposed in Committee?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for her expressions of sympathy and her thanks to those who worked so hard in the Environment Agency and local councils through this difficult period.

The hon. Lady asked four questions about the review. She will have heard me say that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) is meeting tomorrow to work on recovery, and I shall work across Government with my colleagues to look at some of the lessons learned. The hon. Lady justifiably touched on one area which is, I think, a weakness. Although the Environment Agency and the Flood Forecasting Centre have put out very accurate short-term forecasts and although an efficient system was in place for distributing that information right across those on the ground—district councils, power companies, other utilities, transport companies—we saw a patchy take-up of some of that information and a patchy reaction to it. Some reacted very rapidly and were very effective; others had to be accelerated in their actions after a succession of Cobra meetings. The hon. Lady has touched on an area well worthy of investigation.

On expenditure, the hon. Lady is, sadly, simply wrong. Since I have been in this post—

[Maria Eagle]

You are wrong.

[Mr Paterson]

I will tell the hon. Lady; the chronology is very simple. I met her former colleague, the noble Lord Smith, at a tremendous flood scheme in Nottingham, where £45 million had been spent, protecting about 12,000 properties. What was really revealing was not only the 8:1 gain on the properties protected, as she mentioned, but the huge gain in land on the far side of the river that had been blighted for decades. So there is no stronger enthusiast in this House for flood detection schemes than me. I agree with Lord Smith that if we had a programme of projects that we could press on with rapidly, I would do my best to get money from my colleagues in central Government. [Interruption.] All those Opposition Members chuntering have to get back to some pretty basic figures. When we came into office in 2010, this country was borrowing over £300,000 a minute, and we had to take some pretty difficult decisions. In the light of that and the dire economic circumstances, reductions in revenue inevitably had to be made. Following my meetings with the noble Lord Smith, we got an extra £120 million for capital and have consolidated that into an extended scheme that will see 165,000 properties protected up to 2015. What is absolutely unprecedented is our clear programme of a further £2.3 billion up to 2021 to protect a further 300,000 properties. For all the blather from the Opposition, the simple question for the hon. Lady is whether she will nod now and say that the Labour party will go along with our proposal to spend £2.3 billion on capital up until 2021. Mr Speaker and colleagues, it is very noticeable—[Interruption.]

Water Bill

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Despite the sensible measures that are contained in the Bill, this is a wasted opportunity to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on stretched household budgets. Water bills have increased by almost 50% in real terms since privatisation. With wages not keeping pace with inflation, that is adding to the cost of living crisis. Prices have risen faster than wages in 40 of the 41 months in which the Prime Minister has been in Downing street. People are more than £1,600 a year worse off on average under this Government.

The rising cost of water is adding to that pressure. However, the Bill fails to provide Ofwat with tougher powers to bring down prices and it fails to require water companies to help those who are struggling to pay their bills. Despite the promises from the Prime Minister that we would see action, the Secretary of State has not brought forward a single new measure. All that we have seen is one weakly worded letter to water bosses, begging them not to hike bills next year. There was not even a threat of action if they take no notice—no threat of a tougher regulatory regime and no threat to impose an affordability scheme.

[Mr Paterson]

I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. It might rather spoil her argument if I pointed out that all the current prices were set by her Government in the last price review in 2009. Between 1999 and 2009—between the first and last price reviews under the last Government—water bills rose in real terms by £65, from £324 to £389, which is an increase of more than 20% in the average household bill. Today, under this Government, the price of the average bill is £388.

[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.

[Mr Paterson]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will not give way until I have finished answering the point the right hon. Gentleman has already made. Even if we get to such a point, there will be a significant period in which householders are subject to a monopoly. He must ensure that Ofwat has the relevant powers.

During our exchanges in the House in questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last Thursday, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what steps he had taken between meeting the water companies in July, which he referred to in his letter, and his follow-up letter to them this month. He was not able to list a single action because the truth is that he did nothing for four months until he began acting under orders from No. 10. That was after the Prime Minister decided that he had no choice but to appear interested in the issue, following an intervention from the Leader of the Opposition.

The right hon. Gentleman made it clear in his letter to the water companies that he favours a voluntary approach, with companies deciding for themselves if and how to help those who are struggling. He does not propose any new powers to widen Ofwat’s scope to reopen pricing settlements between reviews, yet while customers pay among the highest bills in Europe, water companies are doing well from their monopoly position.

Last year, regional water companies made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, but paid out a staggering £1.8 billion to shareholders. We know they do that and that it is achieved through financial engineering designed to maximise their debt and minimise tax liabilities. That is unacceptable and morally wrong when people are struggling, and I believe people across the country will agree.

[Caroline Lucas]

With 40% of low-income households paying some of the highest bills, and three-quarters of our rivers being degraded through abstraction, does the hon. Lady agree that a privatised monopoly industry is failing our environment and consumers? Does she also agree that we need to move the Bill towards greater public ownership and public control of our water resources?

[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.

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The fact is that the previous Government let Ofwat go to sleep. They did not have a proper regulator but we have a robust new regulator in Jonson Cox. Only last week he turned down a proposed price increase by Thames Water, which would have put 8% on bills. That is what a proper regulator does, backed by a proper Government who have a real interest in keeping bills down for our hard-working families.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has been on her feet for some time and I am looking forward to hearing her vision for the water sector for the years ahead. I hope she gives the House a view on how we can encourage more investment to tackle the problems described by hon. Members on both sides of the House. She is talking about the very important question of prices for our households, but will she extend that to talk about the great need for greater investment in our water sector?

[Maria Eagle]

If the hon. Gentleman is slightly more patient, he will hear what I have to say in the rest of my speech on those and other matters, but the Secretary of State was on his feet for 35-plus minutes, so the hon. Gentleman has not been waiting too long yet.

It is time for a wider review of whether we have the right balance between Ofwat’s regulatory role and the need for a powerful champion for consumers. The review should consider the future relationship between, and roles of, Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water. I believe there is a need for a proper ombudsman role because adequate powers of redress for customers do not currently exist. The Bill should have established such an arrangement rather than simply arranging for it to be possible at some undefined point in the future.

The Government should also consider accepting the Consumer Council for Water proposal for it to be given enhanced rights to be consulted on each water company’s charging scheme and any changes to it, and a continual scrutiny role to “find and fix issues”, as it puts it, as they arise. I believe there is merit in those proposals and hope Ministers agree.

The second major change the Opposition want during the passage of the Bill is the introduction of a clear legal requirement on water companies to sign up to a new national affordability scheme. When I raised that with the Secretary of State last Thursday, he responded:

“The Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable consumers and to reduce bad debt.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1350.]

However, it is absolutely clear that his encouragement is not enough. Just three companies have introduced social tariffs, with fewer than 25,000 customers receiving assistance. Considering that Ofwat estimates that 2.6 million households, or 11%, currently spend more than 5% of their income on water, it is clear that only a tiny fraction of those struggling are being helped.

[Miss McIntosh]

The hon. Lady will recall that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 contained provisions for social tariffs, but the Department for Work and Pensions refused, as it continues to refuse, to allow the information relating to benefits to be released. I cannot understand why that is the case, but why did Labour Members not push harder for that information to be released when Labour was in government?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Lady has a point, and I will shortly say something about what I believe we ought to do about it.

It is not good enough that so few customers can benefit or receive assistance when they have genuine hardship in paying. It is time to replace voluntary social tariffs with a national affordability scheme, funded by the water companies from their excess profits. We need to end the postcode lottery that means that the help one can get depends on where one lives, and we need the Government to set clear eligibility criteria.

In response to my question last week, the Secretary of State said:

“The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that the schemes that help some water bill payers are paid for by others.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1352.]

Of course, that is the Government’s approach because he is not willing to stand up to vested interests. He is not willing to say to the water companies that they cannot continue to pay out almost every pound they make in dividend payments—£1.8 billion last year—and leave it solely to other customers to fund measures to help those in need. The Government should finally drop their opposition to a national affordability scheme and require the water companies to step up and meet their social obligations.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

rose—

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the former Secretary of State.

[Mrs Spelman]

For the benefit of the House, it is only fair to explain that there are two ways that the most vulnerable people in society can be helped. The hon. Lady mentioned social tariffs, but the WaterSure scheme, which is funded centrally from Government and does not require cross-transfer between water consumers in any one company, helps households that consume large quantities of water through no fault of their own.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is correct. I was about to mention WaterSure in my next breath, if she had waited a moment.

WaterSure was introduced by Labour as a targeted payment to households with three or more children or to households that demand a high use of water owing to a medical condition, yet only a third of eligible households access the scheme. Ministers should set a target and work with the water industry to ensure it is achieved, and use existing data on benefits to ensure that everyone eligible is on the lowest tariff. It is essential that the cost to households of non-payment, by others who can afford to pay—

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

It is essential that the cost to households of non-payment by others, who can afford to pay but who choose not to, is finally tackled. Failing to address this matter is unacceptable when it adds £15 to the average bill and households are struggling with rising bills. It is time to require landlords to provide tenants’ details to water companies, something the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), has demanded.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should implement the provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 on bad debt without further delay.

On the financial practices of water companies, I urge the Secretary of State to press his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to use the autumn statement next week to set out measures to crack down on the tax avoidance that we know goes on in the water industry. We cannot have a situation where water companies are taking strategic decisions with the clear purpose of structuring their financial affairs in a way that leads to worrying—

[Sheryll Murray]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State was generous with his time. I cannot understand why the shadow Secretary of State is not being as generous.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. The hon. Lady knows full well that it is up to the person speaking to decide whether they will give way. There have been interventions. We will have to wait and see if there will be any more.

[Maria Eagle]

We cannot have a situation where water companies are taking strategic decisions, with the clear purpose of structuring their financial affairs in a way that leads to worrying debt and hinders their ability to invest, when their sole purpose is to minimise their tax liability. Ofwat said in March that

“the overall proportion of equity has diminished from 42.5% in 2006 to 30% of regulatory capital value today with several companies at 80% gearing, thus obtaining only one fifth of their financing from equity. This reduction is a serious concern.”

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

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She makes an important point about the behaviour of the water companies. Will she explain why, under the previous Government, the water companies’ combined debt of £939 million in 2004 had increased by 70% by 2010, when her party left office? Perhaps she could provide us with some context.

[Maria Eagle]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not believe the Labour Government did enough during our time in office to ensure that that was correctly handled, but that is not a reason to allow the water companies off the hook now.

Under Ofwat’s current powers, capital structure and consequent risk are matters for the boards and shareholders of those companies, so any action must come from the Government. We have seen from briefings to the Financial Times that Ministers are considering reducing the interest payments that can be deducted from a company’s tax bill, especially for larger and more highly indebted companies—as many water companies now are—or even putting a levy on the debt held by highly leveraged water companies. Whichever solution—if any—that the Government decide on, it must happen quickly.

Despite the gaping hole left by the Government’s failure to introduce in the Bill measures on water affordability for households, there are measures that we support. That should not be a surprise, given that they arose from three important reviews taken forward by the last Government: the Pitt review on flooding, the Walker review on affordability and the Cave review on competition.

[George Hollingbery]

The hon. Lady has made some candid remarks about the last Government’s failure and some sensible points about what might be changed in the Bill. She also makes much of the Government’s admission of certain issues that she now thinks are terribly important, but nowhere in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, published only eight or nine months ago, is there a record of any Labour Member making any of the suggestions that she is making now. Is this not just a transparent device to bring a certain topic in a certain context to the Chamber today?

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinions.

The three reviews built on the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which we enacted before the last election. We support the measures to increase competition and enable non-household customers to choose their water supplier, and we want new entrants into the sector and so support measures to encourage that development. We also support the regulatory reforms designed to place a greater focus on the long-term resilience of water supplies and the measures to provide, at long last, the statutory basis for agreement on reinsurance.

We have concerns about several areas, however, many of which are shared by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. First, we agree with the Government’s decision to open up non-residential competition, as there is increasing evidence of a successful market emerging in Scotland. The introduction of competition for business customers is intended to provide choice, drive down costs and improve water efficiency, and we hope that it is successful, but the Government should listen to the Select Committee, which has said:

“We believe that protecting householders from subsidising competition in the non-household sector is a fundamental principle that should be enshrined in primary legislation.”

The Consumer Council for Water has rightly said:

“It is a vital principle that customers who are not eligible to switch retailer should not be disadvantaged. This should ideally be reflected in legislation.”

The statement in the recently published charging principles that household customers will not subsidise the development of competitive markets for business customers is a step forward, but not enough. We agree with the Select Committee and the Consumer Council for Water that it should be included in the Bill, and if Ministers refuse to reconsider their decision, we will seek to amend it.

Secondly, we do not understand why Ministers are being stubborn over enabling water companies to exit the retail market, which seems a perfectly non-contentious but important principle for the effectiveness of a market. The Select Committee is also clear on that point, and I think that the Government should rethink it. Thirdly, the Secretary of State should reconsider his decision not to require the separation of company wholesale and retail arms as part of his package of reforms. The Select Committee has called for a

“requirement for the functional separation of incumbent companies’ wholesale and retail arms. We further recommend that the principle of non-discrimination be included on the face of the Bill.”

We agree with the Select Committee.

Fourthly, we believe that the Government’s concerns about agreeing to the wide-ranging calls to elevate Ofwat’s sustainable development duty to a primary duty are misplaced. The Select Committee said:

“We are persuaded that the increasing pressures on our water resources, highlighted in the Water White Paper, justify such a change.”

The change is also supported by the 15 environmental non-governmental organisations that make up the Blueprint for Water coalition, including the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts and the Marine Conservation Society. Without the change, Ofwat could, for example, be forced to strike out investment to deliver demand management in over-abstracted areas by having to place significant financial implications for companies above the principles of sustainable development.

[Richard Benyon]

May I take the hon. Lady back to the question of exits? We looked carefully at this, and I believe that the kind of structure our water industry should have is a matter for this House and this Parliament. If she is saying that we should allow exits, she is effectively saying we should allow water companies no longer to be integrated, when it is the Government’s belief—and perhaps that of the Opposition—that they should be. If we were to allow exits, it would say that water companies could change their structure, but does she not agree that that should be a matter for Parliament, not for the water companies to decide on a whim?

[Maria Eagle]

I am of course interested to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman who was, until recently, a well-liked Minister in the Department. [Interruption.] Well, he is still well liked, but no longer a Minister. I am not wishing to rub it in, but he decided to return to the Back Benches. [Interruption.] I am trying to be nice to him, although I know that that is unusual. It is interesting to hear his point of view. Water companies have changed their structures since privatisation, and I view it as normal in a functioning market for organisations to be able to exit it. I am sure that this can be considered in greater detail in Committee. I do not know whether he will have the honour of serving on the Committee—we will wait to see—but we will have an opportunity, as I say, to debate the issue in more detail in Committee. It is odd to open up a market and then to prevent certain companies from leaving it.

I was moving on to my fifth point about the detail of the Bill. We have serious concerns about the Government’s disjointed and, frankly, botched plans to introduce upstream competition. We support the principle of upstream competition and acknowledge the benefits that it could bring, but even a slimmed-down version of the Government’s plans would not adequately address the potential consequences of not taking forward abstraction reform in parallel.

The Government’s White Paper “Water for Life” set out a strong case for abstraction reform, yet the target date for a new regime is now 2022. The fact is that, historically, we have seen the over-allocation of water resources. Competition in advance of abstraction reform risks increasing the total amount of water taken from the environment—not least as those with unused or part-used abstraction licences seek new ways to realise their value.

The Government are asking the House to support these reforms, although their sustainability is dependent on a further piece of legislation. The Secretary of State knows full well that this is a promise that he cannot guarantee to deliver. Regretfully, I have to say that, unless he is able to offer some very convincing remedies on this issue, our instinct will be to seek to remove this entire part of the legislation. It would be better for the Government to bring back a properly integrated set of reforms in the future.

We support the measures on flood reinsurance—however belated they may be. It was disappointing that the Government were adding clauses to the Bill at such a late stage, but they are welcome, and we will scrutinise them carefully in Committee. The Government’s climate change risk assessment states that floods are the greatest threat that climate change poses to our country. That is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State should take the issue far more seriously, and why it is, frankly, incredible that he has talked of the benefits that could come to the UK from climate change.

There are real risks and far-reaching consequences for the UK from climate change, yet the Secretary of State’s complacent approach, combined with severe cuts to investment in flood defences, is deeply worrying. I hope that he has seen the letter that he has been sent in the past week by Professor Lord Krebs, chairman of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change. In that letter, Professor Krebs raises serious concerns about the failure of the Government’s proposals to strengthen incentives for the uptake of household flood protection measures. He warns that the consequences will be

“that Flood Re costs will be higher than they need to be, at the expense of householders funding the programme through the industry levy.”

The Committee on Climate Change has therefore made five proposals that it believes believe would reduce Flood Re costs and improve value for money, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider those proposals carefully.

The Bill contains a number of important measures that the Opposition will support. On the back of three important reviews commissioned and published by the previous Government, it builds on the reforms and legislation that we introduced when in office. However, the weakness that lies at its heart is the Government’s inability to stand up to vested interests and their failure to take anything approaching a tough approach to the water companies.

Ministers continue to defend the need for a voluntary approach—a voluntary approach to whether help should be provided to those who struggle with their bills, and a voluntary approach to whether customers are offered relief from rising bills, even where companies are benefiting from financial circumstances beyond their control. Let me tell the Secretary of State that it is now 20 years since privatisation, and the voluntary approach has had more than enough time to be tried and tested. It has failed, so it is time not for more letters from him, but for action.

It is time for a new deal with the water companies: a new deal on the contribution that the water companies make through taxation and investment; a new deal on the steps that the water companies must take to tackle the affordability of water for households that are struggling; and a new deal on the extent to which the water companies are regulated. The Bill could and should have been an important step forward in delivering such a new deal. Instead, it is a wasted opportunity. I hope that the Secretary of State will work with us to improve the Bill, particularly in respect of the need to tackle the rising cost of water for struggling households. If he continues to refuse to act, I can assure him that the next Labour Government will act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the regulator, because the last Government did not have a robust regulator. The whole system depends on having a rigorous and robust person in charge of Ofwat. I am pleased that we have that person in Jonson Cox.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State set out for the House the steps he took to tackle the rising cost of water bills between his meeting with the water companies on 10 July and his follow-up letter four months later on 4 November?

[Mr Paterson]

The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that it is not for me, in my office, to dictate prices. The industry is a combination of private companies and a vigorous independent regulator. It is important that I do not overstep the mark and that I support the vigorous regulation that he is bringing in. When the new price review comes through, I think the hon. Lady will be pleasantly surprised to see that prices will be held and that some may fall. However, we need to have the balance that I have spoken about because if we are to keep the industry efficient and keep prices down for the long term for our hard-working constituents, we need to keep the investment coming in.

[Maria Eagle]

In other words, the Secretary of State did absolutely nothing. Does he understand that families who are struggling to pay their water bills want action from the Secretary of State, not a weak letter? With only three companies helping just 25,000 households, it is clear that the voluntary approach has failed. Will he therefore commit to amending the Water Bill, which we will debate on Monday, to require all water companies to be part of a new national affordability scheme and finally ease the cost of living crisis on families?

[Mr Paterson]

The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that the schemes that help some water bill payers are paid for by others. She wants to require there to be a universal tax on all water bill payers. I would not endorse that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers at Woodchester park, but in other areas there has been a significant reduction in badger numbers compared with this time last year.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Last year, the Secretary of State cancelled the cull because there were too many badgers. Yesterday, he admitted that the cull in Somerset would be extended because he could not find enough of them. Can he explain why Gloucestershire has also applied for an extension, even though the six-week trial there has not finished? Is it because the badgers have moved the goalposts there as well?

[Mr Paterson]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I should like her to reflect that, back in 1972, we had the disease beaten—it was down to 0.01%—when we had a bipartisan approach. In every other country where there is a serious problem in cattle and a serious problem in wildlife, both pools are addressed. Her Government tried to sort the problem out by addressing the disease only in cattle. That was a terrible mistake.

On the numbers, as I have just told the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), these animals are wild. There have been similar reductions in Gloucestershire. We are satisfied that, if the local farmers company wants to go on and to apply for an extension, we will be broadly supportive.

[Maria Eagle]

I am afraid that this policy is an absolute shambles. The Secretary of State has failed to meet his own target of eradicating 70% of the local badger population in Somerset, and it is clear that he expects to fail in Gloucestershire too. He must know that extending these trials risks spreading TB over a wider area. Rather than the ever-rising cost of policing his failed approach, we need a coherent plan to eradicate TB through the vaccination of badgers and cattle, and tougher rules on the movement of livestock. Instead of blaming the badgers, when will he stop being stubborn, admit he was wrong and abandon this misguided, unscientific and reckless killing of badgers?

[Mr Paterson]

I am disappointed by that question. We are clear—and we have had advice from the chief veterinary officer—that the number that was achieved in Somerset will lead to a reduction in disease. The hon. Lady should look at what Australia did with its buffalo pool, what New Zealand did with the brushtail possum and—importantly—what the Republic of Ireland did when it had a steadily rising crest of disease in cattle. As soon as the Irish started to remove diseased badgers, they saw a dramatic reduction in affected cattle and, happily, the average Irish badger is now 1kg heavier than before the cull. The Irish are arriving at a position that we want to reach— healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers.