Environmental Protection and Green Growth
Mary Creagh Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the UK risks being left behind in its attempts to attract global investment in environmental technologies; agrees with the British Retail Consortium that the recent Waste Review is a disappointment; further agrees with the Nature Check report by 29 environmental charities that the Government has failed to deliver its environmental goals; condemns the Government’s 27 per cent. cut in flood defence investment from £354 million to £259 million a year; calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s five point plan for jobs and growth and bring forward spending on rural infrastructure projects for flood defences and rural broadband; further calls on the Government to raise the UK recycling target to 70 per cent. by 2025 to create an additional 50,000 jobs; and believes the Government should ensure mandatory carbon emissions reporting for all large UK companies to kick-start green jobs and growth.
May I begin by expressing Opposition Members’ regret that the Environment Secretary is unable to join us for the debate? I understand she is giving evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it is a very short walk from the Grimond room in Portcullis House to the Chamber and I hope that we have the opportunity to debate these issues with her at a future date. I would certainly look forward to that.
Mary Creagh
It is at the Minister’s discretion whether she appears in the Chamber. She could have been informed this morning about an urgent question and would have had to appear before the House. The motion was tabled last night at about 5 o’clock, so she has had almost 24 hours to prepare her speech. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), has been beavering away on his remarks.
Let me start by taking the House back to 2006 and a fresh-faced Leader of the then Opposition visiting the Arctic circle. We all remember the Prime Minister hugging a husky, as well as “Vote blue, go green”. The Tory manifesto told us,
“That is why we have put green issues back at the heart of our politics and that is why they will be at the heart of our government.”
Several megatonnes of carbon dioxide and hot air were emitted by a variety of Conservative MPs confessing their green damascene conversion. In opposition, going green was an essential part of detoxifying the Tory brand, but in the 18 short months that the Government have been in power we have seen progress stall on the environment. As their disastrous economic policies take hold, with confidence failing, unemployment and inflation rising and growth flatlining, the green talk has not been matched by green action.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had a disastrous settlement in the comprehensive spending review—the second-biggest spending cut of any Department—taking £2 billion in cash out of the environment over the next four years. The Secretary of State was bounced into a disastrous plan to raise £100 million by selling England’s forests, and we await the review of the Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the parliamentary private secretary is distributing lines to take from the Government. It is always good to see the briefing machine in action. We hope the brief has been printed on Forest Stewardship Council paper.
The Government have abolished the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government’s watchdog on sustainable development.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Would not the Government do better to try to close the tax gap and stop people hiding their money in foreign accounts, rather than cutting valuable budgets?
Mary Creagh
Yes, I agree, and I know that the Government are working to close tax loopholes, as we did in government.
DEFRA published its “Mainstreaming sustainable development” strategy in February—just seven pages to cut across the whole of Government. Its sustainable development programme board has not met since December last year and the sustainable development policy working group has not met since November. We got those answers in June 2011, so we can see that sustainable development is clearly no longer at the heart of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
What does this add up to? The Government have a plan for cuts but no plan for the environment, yet at the Tory conference the Environment Secretary told her colleagues:
“I passionately believe going green is both a moral and economic imperative.”
The very next day the Chancellor told the conference:
“We’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”
It was the day the husky died. The greenest Government ever were not even the greenest Government in 2010.
Our Labour Government were the greenest Government, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who makes a welcome return to our team, for the progress that he made on the environment when he was a Minister.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I note the comment, “Our Labour Government were the greenest Government”. We were 25th out of the 27 countries in the EU for renewables production in 2009-10. Is that what the hon. Lady means by “the greenest Government”?
Mary Creagh
We on the Labour Benches have always protected the environment, whether by setting up the national parks or introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Climate Change Act 2008. These show our green leadership. Will the Chancellor’s comments and the spat with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change enhance or reduce our leadership on these issues in Europe?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Lady think a little humility might be in order, given that when we take into account the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions, under Labour’s three terms of office, greenhouse gas emissions rose, rather than fell?
Mary Creagh
A little humility might be in order for the hon. Lady, who ignores the fact that we were the first Government in the world to legislate for binding emissions targets.
Mary Creagh
I shall make a little progress and I will give way again.
Today we see open warfare breaking out between Government Departments over mixed messages to UK plc, with the headline in The Independent, “Osborne’s anti-green agenda splits Coalition” and today the speech from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and snub to the Chancellor to cheers from a business audience. The only people who benefit from such Cabinet warfare are the climate sceptics at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, who want us to do less.
Our motion today expresses our concern at this internecine warfare and proposes three steps that the Department can take now to restore business confidence in the green agenda: bringing forward infrastructure spending on flood defence and broadband, as suggested in Labour’s five-point plan for growth; committing to mandatory carbon reporting to stimulate green innovation; and higher waste targets to drive private sector job creation. I shall address each of those in turn.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I represent a flood-hit constituency in the Severn valley. We had serious floods in 1998, 2000 and 2007. Since May 2010, Pershore, Powick, Uckinghall, Kempsey and two schemes in Upton-upon-Severn have been started or completed, compared with the record under the hon. Lady’s Government, where we got one scheme in 13 years.
Mary Creagh
That is an honourable intervention from the hon. Lady. I think it was The Guardian that reported that around 500 flood defence schemes are currently in abeyance. I am keen to hear from the Minister about the future of those schemes.
In the last two years of the Labour Government, spending on flood defences rose by 33%. We know that flooding and other extreme weather events are likely to increase with global warming. We saw only yesterday the devastation that floods can cause, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of the angler who was swept into the sea at Redcar and the two people who died in Ireland. We saw the heartache and the huge cost of flooding in Cornwall and Cumbria in 2009 and in Yorkshire and Gloucestershire in 2007. In this country 5 million homes are at risk from flooding.
In opposition, the Prime Minister called for extra funding for the flood defences budget—hear, hear. Under Labour the budget rose, but the Under-Secretary has cut spending on this essential part of our infrastructure from £354 million in 2010 to just £259 million this year and every year until 2015, which is a 27% cut. Nearly £500 million has been taken out of flood defences.
Communities at risk from flooding need a strong advocate arguing their case at the heart of Government. The Environment Agency tells us that the cost-benefit ratio of all flood defence schemes means that for every £1 we put in we get £8 back. That is money saved on public safety by the Home Office, on lost hours in the NHS, on disruption to transport and on the cost to the Department for Communities and Local Government of clean-up and re-housing people.
The Environment Agency has told us that many of the flood schemes have been deferred indefinitely, but the Minister says that they have merely been postponed, so we hope that he will clarify that today. We call on him to bring forward the planned flood defence investment to create the private sector construction and engineering employment that the country needs and to ensure that towns and cities that need flood protection get it as soon as possible.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend say something about the effect of the cuts in flood defences? Constituents in areas that have been flooded are having difficulty in obtaining insurance. With the statement of principles running out in 2013, what will be the effects of that?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. She has spoken eloquently and at length about the flood insurance deserts that have resulted from the chilling effect of the cuts. One of the key recommendations of the Pitt review, which followed the 2007 floods and affected my constituency of Wakefield, was that flood defence spending should rise by more than inflation every year. With inflation at 5%, that would mean an increase of more than 5% this year.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
This is not a party political question. The Scots argue strongly that one of the best ways to deal with flooding is not to allow construction on flood plains. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that one of the real errors of the past 15 years has been our construction policy, rather than the amount of money put into flood defences?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I did not hear him thank us for the flood defences that were put in place in Cumbria following the terrible floods there.
Mary Creagh
It was our pleasure. I know that Carlisle also suffered terribly. We cannot stop all development. The Thames Gateway development is happening on areas that are also potentially flood plains, but we must ensure that there is a joined-up strategy across Government and that the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Treasury and the Home Office look at the real costs of flooding. At the moment insurers pay out, but it is not in their interests to stop flood events, because ultimately it is the reinsurers who pay the costs. We need to drill down and get a true account from across Government of the costs of flood events.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Apart from the fact that we have £2.1 billion prepared for flood defences, does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite right that in my constituency, which was affected by the floods to which she referred, proper consultation is going on with the Environment Agency to deal with the Severn estuary and that a timely imposition of action is much better than something that is rushed? Furthermore, does that not show the importance of localism in such considerations?
Mary Creagh
It is clear that localism is absolutely vital and local communities should be able to have a say on developments in their area, but I am not clear how that links in with the Government’s national planning policy framework, which has undefined “sustainable development” at its heart. No one can say what “sustainable development” is.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am not sure whether I should thank the hon. Lady personally for any flood defences that have been built in my constituency over the past 13 years, but I will certainly do so if it allows me to continue my intervention, which expands on the point that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made. Do Labour Members agree that we need to tighten planning policy, particularly in relation to empowering the Environment Agency and giving it a veto in areas of flood risk and on flood plains?
Mary Creagh
We cannot allow all development to be killed off, but I agree that there is no point building and selling homes that are not sustainable, and that will be uninsurable, un-mortgageable and unfit for human habitation if they are hit by successive flood events.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
With a reduction in the flood defence budget to pre-Pitt levels, does my hon. Friend agree that, in getting the deficit down, there is confusion between revenue spending and capital investment? Surely, capital investment means building up assets to protect people’s homes and businesses, but all the Government are doing is playing Russian roulette with people’s lives and futures.
Mary Creagh
That is a very good point, and there is also a direct impact on construction and engineering jobs, which are flatlining. For the record, by the way, may I make it clear that I was not requesting any personal thanks? All thanks should be directed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who is sitting next to me.
Labour is the party of jobs and growth not just in cities, but in towns and villages throughout this great country of ours. We are standing up for fairness in the countryside, as yesterday’s debate about the Agricultural Wages Board showed.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned Carlisle. The terrible floods that occurred in my constituency in 2009 created havoc and devastation, and led to the loss of life of a very brave police officer. Carlisle, on whose flood defences £30 million had been spent, was not flooded, but the estimate of the damage that would have occurred without those defences is between £70-odd million and £80 million. Surely, these cuts are only short-term savings.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I read in Hansard the debates he had last year on the issue. The floods were devastating, and he played a huge leadership role in his community, bringing it together in the very difficult months that followed, when without a bridge it was split by the river.
We want strong rural communities where rural businesses can sell their goods and services direct and file their accounts over the internet, and where families have the same opportunities as people in towns and cities. In government, Labour promised universal rural broadband by 2012 and universal high-speed broadband by 2015, yet this Government have said that universal broadband will come only in 2015, and only as long as cash-strapped councils, which have also seen their budgets cut by one third, stump up half the money.
Broadband is essential if we are to tackle the social and financial exclusion that many in the countryside face. Speeding up rural broadband should not be part of a plan B; it should have been in the Government’s plan A. So, we call on them to speed up spending on this 21st century infrastructure in order to stimulate growth and private sector jobs in rural economies.
Let me turn to carbon reporting. In January 2010, several Tory and Lib Dem Members wrote to Labour’s then Business Secretary, calling for mandatory carbon reporting. They included the current Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey)—all now Ministers. In that letter, they said:
“There will be further economic benefits, accelerating the development of the low carbon economy and giving the City the backing it needs to become the world leader in carbon accounting and reporting.”
What a difference two years make.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I know that the Labour party has an obsession with carbon emissions, and indeed the Climate Change Act 2008 was evidence of that, but the motion is about job creation. Carbon reduction has led to an increase in consumer and business electricity prices, and to energy-intensive industries relocating outside the United Kingdom, with the British Air Transport Association saying only last week, “If we continue down this road it will affect the aviation industry’s competitiveness,” so will the hon. Lady explain how that fits with job creation?
Mary Creagh
It is not a matter of either/or. Unlike the Government, far-sighted companies have realised that reporting environmental impact helps them to reduce their costs, to improve their production processes, and drives innovation in products and services. That is where we were a leader in the green economy.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern and frustration that, on carbon reporting, proposals to display energy certificates were made in the Energy Bill Committee? That was called for by many large companies that want reporting of carbon emissions. We were frustrated because, despite saying before they came to government that they supported such a measure, Government Members did not do so in Committee, even though the proposal came from a Conservative Member, who had then to vote against it when we pressed it to a Division.
Mary Creagh
What a sorry tale. Again, the power of the Whips is demonstrated, even in Committee. That shows the collective amnesia on green issues that both parties in government are demonstrating.
David Mowat
Does the hon. Lady believe that if we had had more carbon reporting in the past 13 years we would now be higher than 25th of the 27 EU countries in terms of renewables? For the avoidance of doubt, and so that the House is aware, the two countries that we were ahead of in renewables in 2010 were Malta and Luxembourg.
Mary Creagh
We have leadership in offshore wind, and that was restated by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change today. I was at a business breakfast meeting with representatives of several large manufacturers of regeneration technology, and they said that the most important thing they want from the Government is certainty. I am not sure that climate change was at the top of our agenda 13 years ago, but we have realised over time that it is already factored in and that we will have changing climate over the next 50 years, so we must do something now if we are to preserve and conserve the earth’s resources. We have only one planet.
David Mowat
I agree with everything that the shadow Secretary of State has said, but I am concerned that after 13 years of the previous Government we were 25th of 27 countries, beating only Malta and Luxembourg.
Mary Creagh
When we were in government, we invested £60 million to allow wind turbine manufacturers to invest in our ports.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend should ignore the campaign against having an environmental agenda, because it is not against business. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills visited David Brown Gear Systems in Huddersfield—I am the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, although many people from Colne Valley also work there. We are now specialising in offshore wind power, which is providing jobs and high technology. There is real money in the environment, but the Government are retreating from their green agenda.
Mary Creagh
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
I must tell the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that a green company in my constituency, Logicor, manufactures a product called a green plug, and has business angel backing to roll it out nationally and internationally. The plug fits to an iron or other appliance, and automatically turns it off after 15 or 20 minutes if someone leaves the room and forgets to do so. It has been shown that that can reduce carbon emissions in the home by about 50%. The company’s research demonstrated that what we all fail to switch off most often is our computer printer. I share that with the House and the nation for those who wish do their bit on climate change.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
There is an opportunity to promote jobs and growth in the green sector by cutting the rate of VAT to 5%. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are several anomalies in this area. For example, installing heating controls attract a reduced rate of 5%, but replacing an old boiler with a modern, energy-efficient one does not. This is surely an opportunity to boost the economy and small business.
Mary Creagh
Indeed. Our proposal to reduce VAT to 5% on people’s improvements to their homes in making them more heat and energy-efficient is absolutely part of this agenda.
Luciana Berger
I am not sure where the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) got his figures from. Every year, Pew Environment Group brings out a report that measures countries’ investment in clean tech and renewables. It shows that in 2009, under a Labour Government, we were fifth in the world, and in one year alone, we have dropped to 13th—the largest drop of any G20 country, by 70%—as a result of the policy uncertainty under this Government and the lack of investment forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that drop and how it might impact?
Mary Creagh
I certainly do; once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Uncertainty is the thing that business likes least, but unfortunately uncertainty is what they are getting, in bucketfuls.
David Mowat
The shadow Minister is very generous and I thank her for giving way for absolutely the last time. I got my figures from an EU website, so they are in the public domain. We are 25th out of 27, the two countries that we beat are Malta and Luxembourg, and that is a matter of public record.
Mary Creagh
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the useful publications from the European Union. I do not know which way he voted on Monday, but I am sure that that will be noted by the Whips. [Interruption.] Well, he is using the European Union to back up his argument, and that is very good news.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend remember, as I do, the amount of opposition from Tories and Lib Dems to all applications for wind farms in their areas? Our Government would have made much greater progress—I can say that as a Minister who was there at the time—had it not been for such opposition to developing renewables.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s role in government. Obviously, the decisions that we made in government paved the way for Mitsubishi and Siemens to think about relocating here. We do not want to drive energy-intensive industries or jobs overseas, because in many cases such industries are contributing directly to green development—for example, the steel that is pressed for offshore wind turbines that are manufactured in the UK. Companies in these industries want transparency so that there is a level playing field, showcasing the best and exchanging knowledge so that they can reduce their costs and their environmental impact. We pay tribute to the companies that have already done that work.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
I represent the seat that holds the birthplace of industry, and, some would therefore argue, the birthplace of global warming. These things are probably best done locally. Some local authorities have incredibly good partnerships with businesses. My hon. Friend will be aware that Ricoh, the technology company, has its European headquarters in my constituency. It is a fairly energy-intensive company, but it puts over 90% of its waste product back into the industrial process, internally or with partners. That is an example of where an energy-intensive business can do a lot for the environment as well.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I agree that it is very important that these companies now look through the whole of their manufacturing processes. I will deal with the role of waste in a moment.
In July this year, the Aldersgate Group, a collection of charities with large companies such as BT, PepsiCo and Microsoft, commissioned a report that provided an independent analysis of the impact assessment produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on mandatory carbon reporting. Taking just one of the options—option 3—Aldersgate found that DEFRA had overestimated the total costs by up to £4.6 billion and underestimated the benefits by £980 million. It said that DEFRA’s impact assessment had ignored wider behavioural change, product and service innovation and other strategic advantages from carbon reporting. It also states that DEFRA underestimates the benefits to companies over time, because the DEFRA model assumes that once companies have reduced their emissions in year one, they will not reduce them again over the following nine years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said, large companies such as Ricoh and Tata get very good consultants in every year to see how they can drive down their costs and environmental impact.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I know that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that these are complicated issues. I want to turn her attention to the food industry. Under her Government, the amount of food that this country imported rose exponentially. The carbon footprint of importing food, for example beef from Brazil or asparagus from water-stressed Mexico, is enormous.
Mary Creagh
That is a very good point. I wonder whether the Minister will say something about Labour’s “Food 2030” strategy, which looked at food security both nationally and internationally, on which the Department has been eloquently silent since the Government came to power.
To return to carbon reporting, I cannot help but wonder whether the Department is deliberately inflating costs and reducing benefits as part of a go-slow on these areas. We know that that go-slow is driven by the climate change sceptics at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. When can we expect the results of the Department’s consultations? What are the Minister’s plans to help companies whose biggest environmental impact is not carbon-related, but water consumption, as in the case of the food industry, the amount of waste they send to landfill or the natural resources that they consume?
The Government can drive green innovation in the food industry, our largest manufacturing sector, by using public procurement as they are the UK’s largest buyer. DEFRA is charged with overseeing the Government’s buying standards on sustainable food. Recent figures show that just 11% of Department for Work and Pensions food is sourced to UK animal welfare standards. In today’s Farmers Weekly, there is the extraordinary spectacle of a DEFRA Minister slamming his own Department for not meeting higher food standards, instead of standing up and taking responsibility for the poor performance. It was not like that when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was in government. I suppose that he wanted to get his criticism in before mine today. That is no way to treat the nation’s civil servants.
Waste is big business. The sector employs 142,000 people and has a turnover of £11 billion. There are companies that collect waste, treat it and turn it into new resources and energy for the nation, as in the case of Ricoh that was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I commend to my hon. Friend the partnership between the Labour-led Greater Manchester waste disposal authority and Viridor Laing, which has invested £630 million into new high-tech mechanical separation facilities, including one near the edge of my constituency in Bredbury in the seat of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). The partnership’s aim is to compost 50% of waste and to reduce by 75% the waste that goes from Greater Manchester households to landfill.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to that scheme, because it has created certainty not just for the council, but for employment in the area and it will drive down the council’s waste emissions. Biodegradable material decomposing in landfill generates 40% of the UK’s methane emissions and 3% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. In government, Labour trebled household recycling from 11% to 40% with schemes such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The Government’s recent waste review was a missed opportunity to boost recycling and create new green jobs. It was overshadowed by the in-fighting over weekly bin collections between the Secretary of State for chicken tikka masala and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Andrew George
Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that a weakness in the motion and in her waste policy is that they are based purely on measuring recycling levels? Surely it would be better to measure the success of policies such as those in the waste review using increases in waste, rather than in recycling, because it is theoretically possible for recycling and landfill to increase at the same time.
Mary Creagh
I am sure that would be a great idea in a perfect world, but we are living in the real world and need to comply with the EU waste framework directive so as not to incur huge EU infraction fines. I will come on to what that means.
The three devolved Governments have all adopted an ambitious target of 60% of waste being recycled by 2020, and Scotland and Wales are aiming for 70% by 2025. That leaves England with the weakest recycling target in the UK, which is the target for the UK as a whole to meet the bare legal European minimum of 50% by 2020. There is a bitter irony in that, because the more the devolved nations achieve, the less England will have to deliver to reach the UK target. House of Commons Library research conducted for my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) shows that if the devolved nations meet their targets, England will need to recycle only 47.6% of waste by 2020 to meet its target.
Last week I visited the Rexam can manufacturing plant in Wakefield. Rexam works continually to develop its environmental performance, focusing on objectives including reducing the consumption of resources—I think that was the point that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was making. Over the past year, the plant has reduced its gas consumption by a quarter and its electricity consumption by 30%. The cans, which are ones that we all drink out of, such as Coca-Cola cans, are manufactured to a width of 97 microns, the width of two human hairs. That is another little fact that I can share with the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that supermarkets have a role to play in reducing waste, by reducing food packaging, by not encouraging people to throw away food on unrealistic sell-by dates, and by supporting projects such as FoodCycle, of which I have recently become a patron? That project takes unused food from supermarkets to community cafés and helps to feed people who would be unable to feed themselves. Does she agree that that is an absolutely brilliant project, and that supermarkets ought to be doing more to support it?
Mary Creagh
I do indeed, and I know that many of them are doing that. I have had a debate with the Co-operative about its naked cucumbers. [Interruption.] I pay tribute to charities that are working to recycle unwanted food.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is so much chuntering going on that I cannot hear about these naked cucumbers through all the noise.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on the subject of inappropriate vegetables. I believe that up to 40% of fruit and veg is thrown away before it even reaches the shop. Does that not imply that the supermarkets should be doing a lot more to counter the perverse incentive on producers to provide superficially perfect but no more valuable produce? Should we not address that?
Mary Creagh
Supermarkets do encourage shoppers with deals that may not be as cheap as they first appear, such as buy one, get one free. However, people are now shopping much more carefully. We are hearing from supermarkets about the re-emergence of the cash shopper. People are coming in with a certain amount in their purse or wallet to spend, and not going over their budget at all. They are being much more careful about what they buy and what they consume or throw away.
Of course, all food that is not consumed is a waste. It is a waste of water and of the carbon used in the logistics and transportation. However, there is some necessary food waste, such as apple peelings and banana skins, and we have to ensure that such waste is dealt with. Packaging businesses are taking action on the environment, so I feel the Government are really out of touch on the issue.
Last week, 29 environmental charities published their “Nature Check” report, which showed that the Government were meeting just two of the 16 coalition environmental targets. Across the country, people who voted blue have started to question the Government’s environmental record. How can they abolish Labour’s regional housing targets and then change the planning system so that councils are left in chaos and confusion and local communities are left out of the mix? How can a Government who have cut £2 billion from the environment budget deliver a better environment, and how can a Government who believe in a small state and are anti-regulation deliver environmental progress for people and our planet?
Next year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Rio Earth summit, whose agreements were signed by the last Tory Government, and the 31st anniversary of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I hope that the louring figures of the Chancellor and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will not prevent the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from celebrating those landmark successes.
In Labour’s vision for a green economy, value and growth will be maximised, and natural assets will be managed sustainably. It will be supported by a thriving low-carbon and environmental goods and services sector; environmental damage will be reduced; and a skilled work force will ensure that we innovate and keep our global competitive edge.
In the coming autumn statement, we need a comprehensive green growth strategy from the Chancellor. Governments around the world are attracting investment in environmental technologies and the UK economy risks being left behind, but I am afraid that he has sapped green business confidence in the UK as a leader in climate change technology. Once again, he has shown that he is out of touch with business and driven by dogma. I urge the House to support the Opposition motion.
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman forgets that a 50% cut in capital spending has to come from somewhere. I entirely accept that he might have said there would have been no cut to flood defence spending if Labour had won the election, but nobody believes that it would have survived in its entirety.
Richard Benyon
I shall make some progress, and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady talked about waste and recycling. It is reasonable for an Opposition to push a Government in certain directions, but they cannot just pluck a recycling target of 70% from the air, even though I would certainly aspire to such a target. However, recycling targets on their own are not a measure of how well a Government are doing. Instead, it is vital that we consider the matter in the round and that we push waste issues up the hierarchy. We cannot simply imagine a day when we could move to 70% recycling without getting the industry working properly with us to ensure that there are markets for recyclates and that we have an absolute plan, which is what we have done through our waste initiative.
Richard Benyon
I shall get back to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I am sure she understands that this is not an area of my brief, but the responsibility of my noble Friend Lord Taylor. However, I shall certainly get an answer to the right hon. Lady’s question.
Mary Creagh
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. The five or six matters that he outlined at the beginning of his speech were not DEFRA issues; they come under the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I am glad that he has been joined by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). Does he support his hon. Friend’s proposal to introduce mandatory carbon reporting as soon as possible?
Richard Benyon
We are moving towards it, but I shall come on to that in a minute.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) for his intervention on flood defences. We are talking about an 8% reduction in spending. That is the fair comparison. I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield was being flippant, but it identifies a problem in her party—that people do not have to thank her or her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for money spent on flood defences. This is taxpayers’ money, and it is vital that that taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way. We want to ensure that, over the next few years, we spend taxpayers’ money in the most effective way, because, as the hon. Lady correctly pointed out, we get a good return on taxpayers’ money if it is spent in the right way.
Our new partnership funding scheme will see the taxpayers’ pound going further. We are seeing efficiencies in the Environment Agency that mean that more houses and properties will be protected; and when we take our indicative list forward next year, I hope that many hon. Members’ constituencies will benefit from new schemes with new partnership funding that will bring benefits to those communities.
Richard Benyon
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have huge respect for the leadership that he showed at the time of the floods and for the work that he has done since to push me and my Department in various ways to improve the resilience of that community against flooding. I would be delighted to visit. I would also like to consult him on the development work that we are doing to create new internal drainage boards in the area to deal with precisely the issues that he has raised. I hope that we can ensure better flood resilience in future.
Richard Benyon
I will give way for the last time and then make some progress.
Mary Creagh
What I said was certainly not meant to sound arrogant; it was a debating point, made in jest to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), about the fact that his community had benefited from flood defences, yet he is now part of a Government who are cutting off those defences. Let me challenge the Minister again on the figures. He talks about an 8% cut to DEFRA spending, but can he name another area of Government accounting where spending has been calculated over the previous four years, instead of taking a baseline year which was the last year that Labour was in government? His figure of 8% is based on four years of previous spending compared with four years of future spending. No other Department is doing that; it is an example of funny DEFRA maths.
Richard Benyon
It is certainly not that; it is a sensible comparison. One cannot compare how the hon. Lady’s party behaved in government in the months and years preceding a general election with how it would behave now, when the Opposition have announced to the House how much they would have reduced spending. It is a tired old canard to keep up this talk about spending. She would be much better off looking forward and recognising that the new regime and policies that we are introducing will have a good effect.
The important point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made about insurance is something that exercises us greatly. We hope to make an announcement in the near future about how we will take forward the statement of principles after it concludes in 2013.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I am a little troubled by the idea that the Opposition are presenting their policies to be quite so idyllic. My experience as a Cumbrian MP is that when one looks at a village such as Bampton in my constituency, what one sees is neglect. The past 10 years have seen, if I look to the left, that we suddenly have inedible grass on our hillside because the stocking levels have become too low. We have cows dying unnecessarily of bovine TB. We have an absence of affordable housing in our villages because of rigid planning regulations, and we have worse mobile coverage in Cumbria than in Kabul and extremely ineffective broadband coverage.
In every single respect, the problem—this goes to the heart of the motion—has not been a lack of cash. The problem with the policies pursued has been that they have been too centralised in London, too inflexible and too black and white, and they have failed correctly to engage with communities and businesses.
Mary Creagh
I saw an interesting article a couple of weeks ago in Farmers Guardian or Farmers Weekly, which I read assiduously, about bovine TB. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that bovine TB in his area is not endemic in the badger population, and that it has come from the movement and transmission of cattle?
Rory Stewart
I shall take up that point, as it illustrates the four aspects that I identified. What we need and what the Government are providing is more courage, which goes to bovine TB, more work with communities, more ability to confront vested interests and more creativity.
On courage with respect to bovine TB, what is the fundamental problem with bovine TB in Cumbria? It is not badgers, as the hon. Lady says. It is that for 13 years the previous Government were not prepared to talk honestly to farmers about the fact that the TB getting into our herds is coming from cattle movement. The answer should come from a better attitude towards movement and linked holdings, and a better attitude towards post-movement testing. Scotland has shown the example. We should have had the courage in areas such as Cumbria, which are still safe and where TB is not endemic, to have effectively moved that border south.
That leads to the second element—working with communities. Again, the solution to the lack of affordable housing in our area, the solution to planning in our area, and the solution to renewable energy, particularly hydro-generation, lies in working much more flexibly with communities. We have just built 22 affordable homes in a rural area by allowing the community of Crosby Ravensworth to do its own planning. We are doing barn conversions up and down the east side of Cumbria by listening to communities who want houses for farmers’ children and have been unable to provide them because of rigid centralised planning regulations.
There has been a failure to confront vested interests—a failure to confront supermarkets over contracts, a failure to confront supermarkets over planning, and sometimes a failure to confront certain elements and lobbies within the farming interests, which connects to the issue of bovine TB. The solution is not only to engage with communities and not only to be more courageous, but to be more creative, which brings us to broadband and mobile telephone coverage.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
Mary Creagh Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paice
The hon. Gentleman is mixing his figures. Nobody is disputing £270,000-odd as the annual cost of running the board. That is not the reason for abolishing it. The purpose of abolition, as we have tried to say, is to release the industry and free it up to increase employment opportunities.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I have seen a DEFRA impact assessment, which says that the cumulative impact of holiday pay and reductions in sick pay is £90 million over 10 years, which is where the £9 million a year net present value comes from. I am happy to send the Minister that document if he has not seen it yet.
Mr Paice
I am happy to debate that matter with the hon. Lady outside. [Interruption.] I do not have the document to hand and I am not in a position to dispute the point. I certainly do not wish to be responsible for misleading the House.
On the second part of this group of amendments about the loss of an independent voice for rural communities, the Government have clearly stated that they are firmly of the view that democratically accountable Ministers should take responsibility for policy functions. A single centre of rural expertise, the rural communities policy unit operating within DEFRA, has already been able to engage more effectively since it was started earlier this year. It is already established.
In response to two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, I should say that the commission has not been legally disbanded. That is part of the proposal in the Bill. The rural advocate’s post to which he referred is not a statutory post. It did not require any legislative change.
The work programme of the rural communities policy unit will shortly be published on the DEFRA website and the unit will be using a range of methods to provide public updates about progress and impact. I emphasise that we believe it is DEFRA Ministers who are primarily responsible for ensuring that rural issues are championed within the whole of Government. There are many rural commentators and independent organisations who already advocate strongly, work to us and see us regularly, and all of us are Ministers with strong rural backgrounds. It is our job to be accountable to Parliament for the way that we fulfil our role as rural champions. We will publish various documents and policy proposals over the coming weeks and months to demonstrate clearly that we understand the real needs of rural communities.
I am pleased to say that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has indicated that it will wish to scrutinise the work of the rural communities policy unit. The Government welcome that as further evidence of the importance that many in this House and in the other place attach to the interests of rural communities.
Mary Creagh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to apologise for misleading the House earlier. The total loss to agricultural workers is in fact £93 million over 10 years.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paice
My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The results of the Krebs trials, which were conducted by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, demonstrated that after nine years—long after the end of the trials themselves—there was a reduction of 27%, and even 29%, in the cull zone, which was slightly offset by a temporary increase in the peripheral area. What matters, however, are the measures that are taken to reduce that increase, which is why we are now saying that any group or farmer must now put forward their own ideas about how they will minimise this perturbation.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
In a parliamentary answer to me on 5 September, the Minister said that the science showed that his badger cull would lead to five fewer herd breakdowns a year in each cull area. Last year there were more than 2,025 confirmed herd breakdowns in England, so even with 10 cull areas after 2013 the cull would prevent just 50 herd breakdowns a year, a reduction of only 2.5%. However, the cost to farmers in cull areas will run to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. Why should they bother?
Mr Paice
I suggest that the hon. Lady asks the farmers. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has just said, the farming community is anxious to do something after 13 years of neglect under the Labour party. Of course it will be expensive for the groups of farmers involved, but that is up to them. This is one part of a large package of measures, all the rest of which the Government are doing.
Mary Creagh
The Minister says “do something”, but surely doing something effective is more useful. We know that the Home Secretary has objected to the cull and is concerned that it will divert scarce police resources away from policing the Olympic games next summer. The latest impact assessment, the consultation for which has just closed, put no figure on the costs, although last year’s consultation put the costs at £200,000. Have those costs risen or fallen since then and will he undertake to make them public so that taxpayers can see how much they are contributing to the cull before a final decision is taken on whether to proceed?
Mr Paice
I am glad the hon. Lady recognises that no final decision has been made, a point that I need to emphasise. The fact is that the proposals that we laid before the House, and the consultation that has just finished, were agreed by the whole Government. On the policing costs, we are in discussions, and have been for some months, with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Its attention was unfortunately but quite understandably diverted by the disturbances and riots, so it has only recently refocused, but I assure the hon. Lady that all that information will be used and involved in the final decision, when we bring it to the House.
Bovine TB
Mary Creagh Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Today I am publishing the Government’s bovine tuberculosis eradication programme for England. The programme sets out a comprehensive and balanced package of measures to tackle TB in cattle, badgers and other animals. Nearly 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England in 2010 because of bovine TB, which cost the country £90 million in the past year alone. The problem is particularly bad in west and south-west England, where 23% of cattle farms were unable to move stock off their premises at some point in 2010 due to being affected by the disease.
Cattle measures, including routine testing and surveillance, pre-movement testing, movement restrictions and removal and slaughter of infected animals, will remain the foundation of the TB eradication programme. Measures to address bovine TB in cattle remain the cornerstone of efforts to control the disease right across the country, and existing measures will be strengthened. Measures already introduced include a significant expansion of the areas on more frequent routine TB testing and the DNA tagging of cattle to prevent TB reactor fraud.
Planned new measures that I am announcing today include reducing compensation payments for reactor animals from herds where TB tests are significantly overdue and removing some of the exemptions to the requirement to test animals before they move out of herds under annual and two-year routine testing. The Government will work with the farming industry and the veterinary profession to continue to promote good biosecurity and provide advice and support to farmers, as well as investing £20 million over the next five years to develop effective cattle and oral badger vaccines as quickly as possible. The programme also sets out the proposed way forward on controlling the disease in the badger population, including plans to license groups of farmers and landowners to carry out science-led, strictly controlled culls of badgers in the areas worst affected by TB.
This terrible disease is getting worse, and we have to deal with the devastating impact that it has on farmers and rural communities. There is also the effect on the farming economy and taxpayers. Bovine TB will cost us £1 billion over the next decade in England alone if we do not take more action. First, we need to stop the disease spreading even further, and then we need to bring it under control and ultimately eradicate it. We cannot go on like this. Doing nothing is not an option. Many farmers are desperate and feel unable to control the disease in their herds. If someone has repeatedly had to send their cows to be slaughtered, one can understand the desperation that they feel. We know that unless we tackle the disease in badgers we will never be able to eradicate it in cattle. We also know that no country in the world has successfully controlled TB in cattle without addressing its presence in the wildlife population.
Ultimately, we want to be able to vaccinate cattle and badgers, and we are investing in research, but there are serious practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which is currently the only available option. Badgers have to be trapped and caged in order to dispense it. We are working hard to develop a cattle vaccine and an oral badger vaccine, but a usable and approved cattle vaccine and oral badger vaccine are much further away than we thought, and we cannot say with any certainty if and when they will be ready. We simply cannot afford to keep waiting. We already have a robust set of cattle controls in place, but we need to accept that in some parts of the country they are not enough. Unless we tackle each and every transmission route, including from badgers to cattle, we are likely to see the situation deteriorate further.
There is great strength of feeling on this issue, and that is why I have carefully considered the scientific evidence and the large number of responses to our public consultation. I know that a large section of the public is opposed to culling and that many people are particularly concerned about whether it will actually be effective in reducing TB in cattle and whether it will be humane. I wish that there were some other practical way of dealing with this matter, but we cannot escape the fact that the evidence supports the case for a controlled reduction of the badger population in areas worst affected by bovine TB.
With the problem of TB spreading and no usable vaccine on the horizon, I am strongly minded to allow controlled culling, carried out by groups of farmers and landowners as part of a science-led and carefully managed policy of badger control. Badger control licences would be issued by Natural England under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to enable groups of farmers and landowners to reduce badger populations at their own expense. In light of concerns raised in the public consultation, a number of amendments to the proposed policy have been made. Key stakeholders will now be further consulted on the resulting draft guidance to Natural England, which is the licensing authority for the culling activity. The draft guidance to Natural England sets out strict criteria that applicants for a licence to cull badgers would have to meet to ensure that any culling is carried out safely, effectively and humanely. Initially, in the first year, the culling method would be piloted in two areas to confirm the effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. An independent panel of scientific experts will be asked to evaluate the pilots.
Scientists agree that if culling is conducted in line with the strict criteria identified from the randomised badger culling trial, we would expect it to reduce TB in cattle over a 150 sq km area, plus a 2 km surrounding ring, by an average of 16% over nine years. The Government will not attempt to eradicate the disease nationally by culling, and there would be no culling over the whole endemic area at the same time. However, controlled culling can make an important contribution in the worst affected areas. In the event of a decision to permit culling following the consultation, any culling licences granted by Natural England would be subject to strict conditions, based on evidence from the RBCT, designed to ensure that culling results in an overall decrease in the disease in the areas where it takes place.
Applications for licences would be considered only for a cull area of at least 150 sq km, and with culling to be conducted by trained and proficient experts and paid for by groups of farmers and landowners over a minimum of four years. Farmer groups would have to take reasonable measures to identify barriers and buffers such as rivers, coastlines and motorways, or areas where there are no cattle or where vaccination of badgers occurs at the edge of culling areas, in order to minimise the effect of perturbation, where disturbing the badger population can cause an increase in TB in cattle in the surrounding area. If culling is ultimately authorised, we will look to the farmers involved to show that they take their responsibility very seriously and that they are committed to delivering culling effectively and humanely.
I can assure the House that I have not reached this decision lightly. I am very aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate. However, having now considered all the evidence and all the views, I believe that this is the right way forward.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The Opposition know that bovine TB is a major animal health problem. We understand the desperation of farmers affected by this devastating disease. That is why, in government, Labour set up the randomised badger culling trial. It cost £50 million and remains the most extensive scientific study over a 10-year period on the effects of culling badgers, protecting cattle and reducing bovine TB. The report concluded that
“the reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended and did not offset the financial costs of culling. These results…suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain.”
Labour’s approach in government was led by that science, and we continue to be led by it. The Secretary of State talks of a badger vaccine. However, when she became Secretary of State, she cancelled five of Labour’s six trials a vaccine for badger TB. Why did she not give those vaccine trials a chance to work?
The Government’s announcement today is led by short-term political calculation. These pilots will not change the science. The Secretary of State’s solution of the free shooting of badgers has never been tested. It is therefore not supported by the science. There is strong evidence that localised culling, which she proposes, significantly increases the TB risk in neighbouring herds, as badgers move out of cull areas and spread the disease, particularly in the first two years. Will she tell the House what steps she is taking to ensure that farmers outside cull areas and non-participating farmers inside cull areas are protected from bovine TB? The scientists who met at DEFRA on 4 April 2011 stated that vaccination, which she proposes, is unlikely to be effective at reducing the risk of infection. Her impact assessment states:
“For farmers in cull areas, monetised costs exceed expected monetised benefits.”
So the costs to farmers will exceed the benefits. That is hardly a compelling case to sign up for a DIY cull.
The Secretary of State said the costs of bovine TB will reach £1 billion over the next 10 years. What estimate has she made of the reduction in that £1 billion cost to the taxpayer over the next 10 years with her proposed cull? The taxpayer will still pay for TB testing, monitoring, issuing licences and judging the scientific effectiveness of her cull. Will she tell the House how much the cull will cost the taxpayer? The science shows that there will be, at best, a 16% reduction in TB cases after nine years. Does that mean a reduction in taxpayer costs of about the same amount?
The science also states that culling must be wholesale and sustained. What will the Secretary of State do if the results of the one-year pilot show that the cull has made things worse? How will she deal with farmers who sell up, move on or decide that they no longer want to be part of the cull? Will DEFRA pay for the cull if that happens? Has the Secretary of State seen the letter in The Times of Wednesday 13 July from seven members of the original independent scientific group? It states that
“there are no empirical data on the cost or effectiveness (or indeed humaneness or safety) of controlling badgers by shooting, which has been illegal for decades. If the Government decides to proceed with this untested and risky approach, it is vital that it also instigates well-designed monitoring of the consequences.”
There is obviously some doubt in the Secretary of State’s mind that this is a humane way to proceed. What kind of information will reassure her that killing badgers in this way is humane? How will she monitor and measure the effectiveness of the free shooting pilots? How will she prevent the pilots from becoming an open season on badgers elsewhere in the country? The Badger Trust estimated in 2008 that there were about 300,000 badgers in Britain. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of badgers that will be culled, and of the time frame? The guidance states that the aim is to reduce the number of badgers in control areas by 70%. What measures is she taking to prevent the localised extinction of badgers? What contact has she had with the Bern convention secretariat? Does not the policy she announced today put us at risk of breaching the convention on protecting our wildlife?
The impact assessment estimates that the additional policing costs to deal with protesters against the cull will be £200,000 per year. Devon and Cornwall police are losing 700 officers over the next four years. Which Department will pay for the police required in cull areas—the Home Office, which has had its budget cut by 20%, or DEFRA, which has been cut by 30%? What advice has the Secretary of State had from the Home Office and what public order issues has it identified? Will she publish that advice for the House?
The right hon. Lady promised farmers a science-led approach on bovine TB; today she has turned her back on the science. She promised that she would do something on bovine TB; today she has shown that she will do anything. The right hon. Lady has achieved the almost impossible: with the forests sell-off, her inept handling of wild animals in circuses and now an ill-thought-out badger cull, she has shot herself in the foot not once but three times—a hat trick unmatched by any other Minister.
Mrs Spelman
This is a very serious matter and I do not think it lends itself to political point scoring. I am glad that the hon. Lady has acknowledged that this is a devastating problem. Her Government had the opportunity to do more to address it when they were in office.
The question of the science is an incredibly important and pivotal point. When the previous Government set up the randomised badger culling trial, the initial results showed that within the culled area, there was a significant reduction in TB breakdowns in herds. The perimeter of the area was where the perturbation effect was apparent. The science has continued to be monitored by Christl Donnelly, who has published and had peer reviewed findings on the long-term effect of the decision to cull badgers as a method of reducing the incidence of TB. In the longer term, the reduction in TB herd breakdowns is sustained within the culled area and the negative perturbation effect falls away 12 to 18 months after the culling ceases. That is the science and those are the facts. The scientists agree on the facts. I encourage the hon. Lady to read Christl Donnelly’s most recent publication.
The vaccine deployment trials, to which the hon. Lady referred, were trials not of the vaccine, but of the practical ability to inject badgers with the vaccine and to train people to undertake that. I have seen that with my own eyes. We have the results of those deployment trials and so those resources are no longer required. As I have said, the Government have spent £30 million since 1997 on trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers and a cattle vaccine, and we are committed to spending £20 million over the next five years to continue the development of the vaccines, which we all want to see.
The hon. Lady described the action rather disparagingly as a DIY cull. I hope that I made it clear that a high level of proficiency will be required of those contracted to undertake the cull. They must have achieved deerstalking level 1 proficiency and must undertake an additional course to cope with the physiology of the badger and to understand the health and safety requirements.
The monetised costs are a matter for the farming industry. It is a fact that it costs a modest amount more to incorporate culling as a method of controlling badgers. However, how are we to estimate the social cost to the industry from the repeated breakdowns of herds and the spread of the disease? That is also an important factor in the decision. We estimate that there will be savings to the taxpayer of £900,000 for each 150 sq km area.
On the question of whether farmers will move out of an area having entered into a consortium during the four year period, the industry has agreed to provide the resources up front for a four-year programme of culling. Therefore, if anyone should leave during that time, the resources will be available to contract operators to ensure that the culling programme is seen through. What we know from the randomised badger culling trial is that it is not good to start and then break off before the exercise is completed. We have ensured that that is covered under section 7 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The programme will be closely monitored, as I said, and we will establish an independent panel of experts to look closely at the efficacy and humaneness of it, including through a post mortem of the carcases that accrue from the culling trial, so that we can establish that the animals have been humanely dispatched.
The hon. Lady asked me about the number of badgers likely to be involved. It can only be an estimate, as there is no precise knowledge of the size of the badger population, but before any culling is carried out a detailed survey of the control area and all the setts within it will be required. We estimate that the number of badgers culled will be between 1,000 and 1,500 per 150 sq km area over a four-year period. I invite the House to compare that with the statistics produced by the Highways Agency showing that on average, 50,000 badgers are killed on the roads in this country every year.
Of course, we have been in contact with the Bern convention secretariat on a number of occasions, and there is no question of eradicating the badger population. It is a protected species but not an endangered species in this country, and the most important thing to remember is that unchecked, this disease is spreading further and further north. At the moment we have TB-free badgers and cattle in England, and we want to keep it that way. Our endeavour is to reduce TB infection in cattle and badgers.
I have given the Home Secretary an undertaking that DEFRA will take care of the police costs. I am afraid I cannot share the Home Office advice with the hon. Lady, but I can assure her that I have met the police, who are responsible for public order, on a number of occasions and discussed how they will conduct their role in ensuring that the exercise guarantees public safety, and that those who are contracted to carry out the culling can do so without fear or intimidation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Paice
Perhaps my hon. Friend will accept tomorrow as being close enough to immediately. I can tell him that as of tomorrow, dairy farmers who are covered as members of the assured dairy scheme will find their state inspections going down to once every 10 years, as they are regularly inspected as part of the scheme to which they belong.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
In two weeks’ time this House will debate the Public Bodies Bill, which abolishes the Agricultural Wages Board, which sets pay and conditions for 150,000 farm workers in England and Wales. If the AWB is abolished, every farmer in the country will become responsible for negotiating pay and conditions with their workers. Can the Minister tell the House what estimate he has made of the extra time and money this new regulatory burden will place on farm businesses?
Mr Paice
I have rarely heard such nonsense. The whole purpose of abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board is to reduce regulation, not to increase it. The change has been sought by the industry, which does not see it as regulatory, so what the hon. Lady has to come and tell us that it will increase regulation I really do not know.
Mary Creagh
The Agricultural Wages Board guarantees farm workers other benefits, such as bereavement pay and sick pay. Without it, their sick pay will fall from roughly £180 a week for a grade 1 worker to the statutory minimum of £81.60 a week. The AWB also guarantees children under 16 who work on farms £2.98 an hour. The minimum wage does not cover children under 16, so when the AWB is abolished children on farms will have no wage protection. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has considered the impact of the change on the under-16s. Can he tell the House what protections he will put in place to protect child workers from exploitation?
Mr Paice
There are many other regulations that deal with young people in employment across the whole of industry. The reality is that the board has been in existence for 60 years and it is now well past its sell-by date. The industry has asked for its abolition and, as the Public Bodies Bill stands, we will have to consult on that. The hon. Lady will be able to make her views known at that point—but I must emphasise that the contracts of employment of everyone currently employed in the industry will remain in existence.
Wild Animals (Circuses)
Mary Creagh Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explain her decision not to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is on ministerial business elsewhere. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for her question, because it allows me to draw the House’s attention to the written ministerial statement laid by my right hon. Friend at 9.30 this morning.
During oral questions last Thursday, and in the written ministerial statement on Friday, my right hon. Friend and I referred to a current case against the Austrian Government relating to their ban on circuses. However, we now understand that the initiation of court proceedings against the Austrian Government has been delayed, although a case is in preparation and proceedings are expected to commence shortly. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I would be very happy to clarify the confusion that we might have caused. This does not, however, affect our policy to introduce a tough licensing regime. The very strong legal advice that we have received, which is consistent with the case being prepared against Austria, is that a total ban on wild animals in circuses might well be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union services directive and under our own Human Rights Act 1998—[Interruption.]
Mary Creagh
As the Minister has said, the Secretary of State told the House at DEFRA questions last Thursday that
“the Austrian Government have been taken to court by a German circus company because of a breach of the EU services directive.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1347.]
Her written ministerial statement the following day repeated that allegation, yet today’s statement has confirmed that no legal challenge exists. The DEFRA big top is spinning out of control on these legal cases that do not exist, and hiding behind human rights legislation—
Mary Creagh
It is the Department that is pathetic.
Given that everything read on the internet should not be trusted, for the future avoidance of doubt will the Minister place in the Library the evidence and the legal advice he has received? The Austrian embassy in London confirms that there was a legal challenge against Austria by the Commission, but it was closed in 2005. The European ombudsman closed the case in 2010.
This House relies on Ministers giving us accurate and timely information, so will he take the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House and the British public and will he stop hiding behind some circus owners who, after six years of failed national and European legal challenges, might well bring another case? That provides no reason not to ban wild animals in British circuses.
There is a further point. The Minister wants councils to license circuses, but there is a problem: circuses move from place to place, so conditions might be adequate in one town, but not in another. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government proposes to remove the powers of local authorities to prosecute owners for animal cruelty as part of his so-called review of the “burdens” on local authorities. He is proposing a scheme that gives authorities the power to license, but no ability to prosecute owners if cases of animal cruelty are discovered.
This is another all-singing, all-dancing disaster from the worst-performing Department in government. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs briefed the Daily Express on 3 April that the Department wanted a ban; the Minister’s Back Benchers and the rest of the House want a ban: it is time for another DEFRA U-turn and a ban on wild animals in British circuses.
Mr Paice
I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s record of events is somewhat distorted. We have not claimed that the case brought by the European Commission was anything to do with our decision. I referred specifically to a case that we understand is being prepared, as I have explained, by the European Circus Association against the Austrian Government. I can assure her that my officials have spoken today to the lawyer acting for the European Circus Association to confirm the validity of that. As I have said, we also received advice from our lawyers that the ban could be inconsistent with the provisions of the EU services directive. The hon. Lady has to ask, first, if this is so critical, why did her own Government not do it; and, secondly, if she were a Minister, would she be prepared to override the advice of her own lawyers and risk being taken to court for it, and subsequently having to withdraw the legislation she introduced?
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
The coalition Government are committed to relieving the unnecessary burden of red tape on all of business, but we understand that pressures can be particularly burdensome on SMEs. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposals in the consultation, he will see that these concerns have been taken account of, and I am sure that if he participates in the consultation and further reinforces the views he has expressed in the Chamber, it will all add weight to the outcome of the consultation.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
May I start by saying how unhappy the Opposition are, along with the National Farmers Union, that DEFRA questions have been castrated to a mere 45 minutes, although I understand the Government’s desire to give more time to their stellar parliamentary performer, the Deputy Prime Minister?
In opposition, the Conservative party promised to
“bring forward the date that the largest companies are required to report on carbon emissions”,
yet the consultation the Government published yesterday gives companies an option to do nothing. We heard earlier this week that the hawks in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are holding up Cabinet agreement to the UK’s fourth carbon budget. Is there a Cabinet split on carbon reporting as well?
Mrs Spelman
We must set the record straight, for the sake of all hon. Members. It was the official Opposition who asked for the Deputy Prime Minister to be given a 15-minute slot, which had to come from one of the longer sessions of oral questions. If one analyses the number of questions that Opposition Members have tabled, one will see that the answer lies in their own hands. A glance at the Order Paper will confirm that twice as many Members on the coalition Benches tabled questions to DEFRA.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
We are calling for a substantial reduction in single farm payments, but we do not share the Commission’s view that a cap should be introduced. The capping of farms whose size made them eligible would result in the fragmentation of farm structures, which would prevent agriculture from becoming more competitive and market-oriented.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The CAP has two key roles: ensuring security of food supply and environmental management. On 17 December, The Daily Telegraph reported a secret stitch-up between the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy of France: no reform of the CAP in return for French support for the British rebate. Yet the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State told the Oxford farming conference in January:
“Now is the time to make very significant progress towards reducing our reliance on direct payments”,
but her colleague the Farming Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), contradicted her in the Farmers Guardian saying:
“Farming could not survive without direct payments…we will be suggesting a long, long transition from the current CAP system.”
We know the Prime Minister has full confidence in all his Cabinet Ministers, but who is in charge of CAP negotiations?
Mrs Spelman
I think the hon. Lady should rely a little less on speculation reported in newspapers. She has been a politician for long enough to know that we should take what we read in the papers with a pinch of salt. She obviously was not listening when I very clearly set out our position. Her Government’s position on the CAP over their 13-year period in office was, frankly, not credible: they suggested that direct payments should end immediately. If the hon. Lady does not know enough about farming in this country to know that farmers cannot manage at this point in time without their direct payments, she has a lot of learning to do. Our new position is much more realistic: it is to look forward to the time when subvention will not be required, while in the intervening period helping the industry to adapt so that it is more competitive and market-oriented.
Mary Creagh
OECD reports show that UK food prices have risen by more than 6% in the last year, and families across the country are feeling the pain. The Foresight report says we need to increase production not just to feed the UK, but to meet growing demand for food across the world. The Environment Secretary told her officials she wanted to be briefed on the price of a loaf of bread. Can she tell the House by how much the price of a loaf has gone up in the last six months, and why does her newly published sustainable development strategy make no mention at all of the CAP, food or farming?
Mrs Spelman
I am sure the hon. Lady does the household shopping in the same way that I do, and it is interesting that the hike in world food prices has not yet fully translated through into the cost of the grocery bill. This issue is a concern not only in the UK, but in other countries. It was also a concern to her Government during the last price hike in 2008. She should also be concerned about the farm-gate price of food: farming input costs are rising, making it extremely difficult for farmers to provide us with food at a reasonable price. That is one of the reasons why we made it a priority in our business plan to support British food and farming in a way that her Government did not.
Mrs Spelman
On 17 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) indicated during his Department’s questions that he would publish the relevant Bill in April. Obviously, Parliament is in recess for a significant amount of that month, but the Bill will be published some time around Easter.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I welcome the production of the forestry panel, but the trees are not yet out of the woods. This Sunday, thousands of people will gather in forests across the country to keep up the pressure on the Government to abandon their sale of 100,000 acres of England’s forests. People will be asking me in Dalby forest why their local organisations have been excluded from this panel. What should I tell them?
Mrs Spelman
I am delighted to tell the hon. Lady that the independent panel will hold its meetings in different parts of England, as was the original intention with the consultation, to come to people who have concerns about forests. A huge number of organisations—more than 70—applied to go on the panel, which will engage them all by seeking information, views and evidence from them all so that everyone feels involved.
Forestry (England)
Mary Creagh Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I would first like to say that I take full responsibility for the situation that brings me to the House today. Let me make it clear that we have always placed the highest priority on preserving access and protecting our forests, but the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill, published well before we launched the consultation, gave the wrong impression of the Government’s intentions. That is why I am today announcing three steps that will allow for more measured and rational debate about the future direction of forestry policy.
First, I have taken a decision to end the consultation on the future of the public forest estate, and I take full responsibility for that. I am doing so because it is clear from the early responses to the consultation that the public, and many hon. Members, are not happy with the proposals that we set out. Secondly, the Government will support the removal of the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill, which is in Committee in the other place.
Thirdly, I would like to announce to the House that I am establishing an independent panel to consider forestry policy in England. It will report to me with its findings in the autumn. The panel will advise me on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England, and on the role of the Forestry Commission and the public forest estate. The panel will include representatives of key environmental and access organisations, alongside representatives of the forestry industry. I will shortly publish its membership and terms of reference.
If there is one clear message from this experience, it is that people cherish their forests and woodlands and the benefits that they bring. My first priority throughout this period of debate has been securing a sustainable future for our woodlands and forests. On many occasions in the House last autumn, Ministers gave assurances that our aim in all of this has been to do more to maintain and enhance the public benefits delivered by forestry—from recreational access to wildlife protection, and from tackling climate change to sustaining a wide range of small businesses. That is why my ambition to provide a better future for our forests is undiminished.
We have already heard positive suggestions about how we can do that for heritage forests and all other woodlands. We have spoken to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust, the wildlife trusts, the Ramblers Association and other groups. The Forestry Commission has itself acknowledged that change is needed, and will be fully engaged in the process, as I know that it has many ideas to contribute. We have also been listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom have set up their own initiatives and local groups. We want to support them in that.
Finally, I am sorry, we got this one wrong—but we have listened to people's concerns. I thank colleagues for their support through what has been a very difficult issue. I now want to move forward in step with the public. I hope that the measures that I have announced today, signalling a fresh approach, demonstrate my intention to do the right thing for our forests and our woodlands.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s full and frank apology to the House and to the nation for getting this so very wrong. I am sure that the past 48 hours have not been easy for her.
Last night the Government announced that they would withdraw the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill, which is now in the other place, and scrap the consultation on the sell-off of England's forests. Again, MPs heard about a major Government U-turn on the television, rather than hearing it here first. [Hon. Members: “No!”] It came through on BBC News and Sky at 10.20. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when she was informed of the decision that she is now announcing, as her statement is mysteriously absent from the Order Paper today? Only yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the consultation on the forests, set to run until April, would continue. When was the decision made, and who made it?
Today the air is filled with the sound of chickens coming home to roost. The Secretary of State has discovered that her first priority—delivering the 30% cut that she inflicted on her Department—has a hefty political price attached. Half a million people have marched, mountain-biked and petitioned against her sale of the century. They objected to the once-in-a-lifetime offer to buy something that they already collectively own. Under the cloak of reducing the deficit, she came up with a policy that her own Department admitted would cost more than it delivered in benefits, and which would have fragmented the environmental stewardship of England's forests. I congratulate all hon. Members who defied their party Whips a couple of weeks ago to vote against the sell-off, and I remind those who did not that the public may well extract a hefty price from them at the next election.
Today is not a victory for politics as usual: it is a victory for Liz Searle of the Friends of Chopwell Wood, whom I met in Gateshead two weeks ago, for the Save Cannock Chase campaigners, and for the Friends of Dalby Forest, members of which I met in York last weekend. It is a victory for the Save Our Woods campaign, for Alan Robertson from the Hands Off Our Forest campaign in the Forest of Dean, and for thousands of others. I hope that Government Members are listening to those names and will contact those campaigners. They signed the Save Our Forests petition and the Save England's Forests petition, and supported the silent majority in speaking up and telling the Government, “This land is our land”.
Last Friday the Secretary of State announced that her sale of 15% of England's forest permitted under the law as it stands would be put on hold until the consultation ended. The consultation ended last night—we assume by prime ministerial decree. Will the sale of those 40,000 hectares, or 100,000 acres—10 times more than the Labour Government sold during their entire 13 years, and we then reinvested the money—now go ahead, or will that sale await the outcome of the panel’s deliberations? How many consultation responses has she received, and will the panel consider those responses?
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has finally spoken to the environmental charities and listened to them on the matter. How will the freshly dreamed-up independent panel on the forests be selected? Why are representatives of the forestry industry—the lone voice in favour of her proposals—included in the panel, and why will it meet in secret? Should it not tour the country listening to what people want from their forests and showing a little humility on the subject? Can she reassure the public that foresters themselves, the custodians of forests, will be represented on the panel? How will the campaigners and the members of the public who have spoken up on the issue be represented? What is the status of DEFRA’s forestry regulation—or should I say deregulation—taskforce, which was quietly announced by her colleague in January? Surely we should not have two separate advisory panels, running in tandem, on the future of the forests? Can she tell the House how the Forestry Commission can possibly deliver better access and more biodiversity when it is set to lose a quarter of its staff in the next three months?
This U-turn highlights a wider problem about how this Government work. We have the Prime Minister, a self-styled non-executive chairman, now setting up a unit to monitor Ministers, but he is barking up the wrong tree. It is not individual Departments he should be putting into special measures, but the whole Government, who are out of touch with what people care about, whether that is the opportunity to walk in the forests or to ensure that babies get milk and books, or that our children have the chance to go to university.
I congratulate the Environment Secretary on one thing: she is probably the only Cabinet Minister in living memory to unite the Socialist Workers party and the National Trust in opposition to her plans. Will she learn the lessons of this debacle? She cannot ride roughshod over the people on a policy for which she has no mandate. By offering her 30% cut across DEFRA she has set herself on a collision course with anybody who loves the countryside—and if she will not stand up for the countryside, we on the Labour Benches most certainly will.
Mrs Spelman
As I am sure you, Mr Speaker, and the House are aware, I volunteered to make an oral statement, and an oral statement does not appear on the Order Paper.
I made the decision with the Prime Minister. We have spoken about the matter, as the hon. Lady would expect, on a number of occasions. We spoke face to face about the options open to us, and we made the decision together.
The hon. Lady talks about the savings that I have had to make in my Department without a trace of acknowledgement that the reason Government Departments are having to make savings is the mess that her Government left this country in. I do not accept her argument that the proposals outlined in the consultation would have impacted adversely on the stewardship of our woodlands and forests. Since we are on the subject of stewardship, I remind her that, notwithstanding the savings that we have had to make in our Department, we have protected the expenditure on stewardship, precisely because we know that it is so important.
The many friends of forests that the hon. Lady listed will in many cases have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their concern about their understanding of the forestry clauses in the Public Bodies Bill. In their minds, those clauses gave rise to a concern that their particular dearly loved forest might in some way be under threat. It is clear from my statement that, with the withdrawal of the forestry clauses, there can be no question about the protection of their forests in future.
The hon. Lady asked me about the planned sales. They have been suspended, and we await the outcome from the panel. She asked how many responses we had received. The Forestry Commission has received approximately 7,000 direct responses and 2,500 e-mails, and it has sent out 400 hard copies of the consultation document.
With regard to the composition of the panel, it will represent the broad range of views of all those who share with all of us a love and cherishing of the forests, and want to see them protected. It will be broad. Let me help the hon. Lady with her understanding of the deregulation taskforce, which fulfils a completely different function from that of the panel. We have invited Mr Richard Macdonald to advise Ministers on the simplification of regulation, particularly the regulation of agriculture. The consultation is complete: we have received the responses and we await Mr Macdonald’s report. As I said, this is a completely different function from that of the panel that I have announced today.
I found it quite hard to take the hon. Lady’s comments about the support that the previous Labour Government had given to the countryside—and the reaction of Members to those comments was enough to reinforce that point. Finally, as regards humility—perhaps, ultimately, that is the difference between her and me. I am prepared to come here and show genuine humility. If we heard some acknowledgement from the hon. Lady that her Government sold off forests with inadequate protection, we might begin to take what she had to say more seriously.
Flood Defence Allocations
Mary Creagh Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s flood defence allocations for 2011-12.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
The coalition Government are committed to protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion where it is sustainable and affordable to do so. Today, the Environment Agency is setting out detailed plans for proposed capital investment projects in the 2011-12 financial year. When completed, these schemes will provide better protection to over 112,000 homes in England. As already announced, a total of £521 million will be allocated by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Environment Agency next year for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. That will be roughly half revenue funding and half capital investment. The capital funds will take forward 109 schemes which are already under construction, and in addition to these, a further 39 new flood and coastal defence projects will go ahead. Of these, 21 projects will provide better protection to 13,000 households at risk. The remainder relates to repairs and safety enhancements to existing defences.
The list of new schemes includes a £5.7 million project to protect 182 households in Keswick from flooding of the river Derwent. In total, over the next four years DEFRA intends to spend at least £2.1 billion and increase protection for at least 145,000 homes.
Inevitably, it has been necessary to find savings in all areas of Government expenditure, but we have protected flood and coastal erosion risk management as much as possible. The reduction is 8% compared with the previous four-year period. We have protected front-line services such as forecasting, warnings and incident response, and the maintenance of existing defences.
As I have said previously, no schemes will have been cancelled. All defences already under construction—the 109 projects I have mentioned— will be completed. It is the nature of flood and coastal defence investment that there are always more projects than national budgets can afford at any one time. Funding has always needed to be prioritised. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns of people and hon. Members who are worried that a particular scheme is not on the indicative list for funding. I should stress, however, that this does not amount to the Government cancelling schemes or saying any particular scheme cannot go ahead in the future. The method of Government funding for schemes starting in 2012-13 and beyond is currently under review. That follows recommendations made by Sir Michael Pitt after the widespread flooding of 2007. Transparency and greater local involvement are at the heart of the new proposals.
Whatever the amount of funding available, we cannot expect the national taxpayer to completely fund all the costs of each and every scheme; that has been a long-accepted understanding on both sides of the House. Difficult decisions must be made, and we must ensure that public investment delivers the most in terms of outcomes and benefits per pound spent.
Under the new proposals for funding flood and coastal erosion risk management, local ambitions in terms of protection no longer need be constrained by what national budgets can afford. We want to use every £1 wisely and make sure that as many people as possible have the opportunity of benefiting from new or enhanced flood defences. With the funding allocations announced today, 112,000 properties will benefit from improved protection. Going forward, closer working with local communities and more opportunities for outside contributions will mean that more people will ultimately be protected.
Mary Creagh
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I am surprised that the Secretary of State, to whom this question was put, did not deem the House worthy of an answer in person from her.
We know that the Environment Agency board met last Thursday to decide this year’s flood defence allocations, and that the press were invited to a briefing today at noon. We heard from journalists that DEFRA would issue a press release today at noon, but without this urgent question—which you kindly granted, Mr Speaker—Members would have read of the total nationwide flood allocations from the media this evening rather than debating them fully in Parliament today. Can the Minister tell the House why a written ministerial statement on the flood allocations was not even laid in the Library or on the Order Paper today?
Following the comprehensive spending review, Parliament has not had any chance to debate the flood budget for 2011-12, yet this is arguably the part of the DEFRA budget which most affects our constituents. The amount was revealed in a written answer on 20 January this year, which said that the capital funding for flood defences to protect our constituents’ homes has fallen from a baseline figure last year of £354 million to £259 million. Will the Minister confirm that this is a 27% cash cut to the budget, and a 32% real-terms cut when inflation is taken into account, and not the bizarre 8% cut that he insists on briefing in the media?
We know from the Environment Agency’s own figures that,
“On average, every pound invested in improved flood protection…reduces the long term cost of flooding and coastal erosion by £8.”
Has the Minister calculated that this £95 million cut to flood defence spending this year will actually cost the nation more than three quarters of a billion pounds—£760 million—in lost future value? We know that certain schemes have been cancelled, because MPs in those areas have been briefed. The Minister mentioned 39 new schemes going forward, but 59 flood defence projects are due to start over the next four years. How many of those will be completed in the next four years, and what steps is he taking to protect areas affected by these reductions in flood defence spending?
In the past, the Government allocated flood defence money for two or three years, as large construction projects take several years to plan and complete. We have heard from the Minister today about his plans for a flood levy. Again, this is the first time we have debated that on the Floor of the House, but the consultation is on the DEFRA website. Can he reassure the House that any proposals for future flood defence funding are not skewed away from areas of high need and towards areas where people have deeper pockets?
Can the Minister say what conversations he has had with the insurance industry about its consternation at these funding cuts? Labour’s statement of principles guaranteed universal flood insurance coverage for homes in affected areas. It runs out in 2013 and was based on the understanding, following the Pitt review, that Government should have
“above inflation settlements for future spending rounds.”
Is the Minister aware of the comments of Steve Foulsham, technical service manager of the British Insurance Brokers Association, who said in Insurance Professional Magazine in January 2011:
“When the Statement of Principles comes to an end, it will be devastating for consumers”?
Has the Minister had any contact with David Williams, managing director of claims at Axa Commercial Lines, who says,
“Now that spending has been reduced…all bets are off. The Government is in breach of its side of the bargain, so if insurers wanted to stop providing cover, they would probably be able to”?
What contact has the Minister had with the industry to ensure that homes do not become uninsurable, or insurance premiums simply unaffordable? Does he agree with me that if insurance is too expensive, the Government become the insurer of last resort for those who simply cannot afford it?
Finally, may I ask that the Minister place a copy of his statement in the Library of the House, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House can communicate first with their constituents, and not be trumped once again by the newspapers?
Richard Benyon
I am grateful for those questions and I am sure I can reassure the hon. Lady on a number of them. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from a meeting at Water UK. This is an urgent question, she came to the House a short time ago, and I have been available to prepare for it. Secondly, we have a debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall when we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters in detail, and I look forward to that. Thirdly, on the hon. Lady’s question about a written statement, there is nothing different in this method of announcing funding compared with previous years. Last year, there was no written statement. These are indicative budgets put forward by the Environment Agency. Where Ministers were, rightly, held and continue to be held to account was on the overall budget, which was announced in the autumn. There are plenty of opportunities for the hon. Lady—Opposition day debates and other circumstances —to raise this issue and hold Ministers to account. The Environment Agency is publishing its indicative list of schemes that are due to go ahead in the coming year, and that goes to regional flood defence committees for approval. So we are at that stage of the process, and that is no different from previous years, and no written statement was made last year—I checked before I came to the House.
On capital spending, really, the hon. Lady has got to change her tack, because she is not comparing apples with apples; these are two very different circumstances. Rightly, the former Chancellor in the previous Government announced a 50% cut in capital spending. If the hon. Lady were sitting on the Government side of the House, she might—rightly, as we have—favour flood spending and reduce the amount of saving accordingly, as we have done. But she cannot say that as if the spending last year and this year are the same, because they are not; the economic situations are completely different. She knows that and she really needs to change her tune.
The hon. Lady asked about communities with a high deprivation index, where there is a need to protect people on low incomes. I can assure her that the system will be skewed, as it is and always was, in favour of areas where a large number of people are on low incomes; that will remain through the payment-for-outcomes scheme.
On insurance, we are working closely with the Association of British Insurers. The statement of principles was always going to end in 2013, and it is always going to require important and careful negotiation to ensure that we get a scheme that protects people and their homes and so that they can get insurance. A good working party has come out of a flood summit that we held in September, which was attended by a number of hon. Members. The ABI is optimistic that it can find a scheme that will offer the kind of protection that households will need in the future, and I hope that that will be the case.