Animal Welfare

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should like to inform Members that if they speak for no more than eight minutes, everyone will get in. That would allow everyone to speak for eight minutes in the next debate as well. So if we could all stick to an informal limit of eight minutes, that would be fantastic.

Future Flood Prevention

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call Mary Creagh to speak, I should say that twice the number of Members wish to speak in the next debate as in this one, so I suggest an informal six-minute limit for speeches by Back Benchers. We will see how we get on with that, but there really are twice as many Members who wish to speak in the next debate, so without a limit their speeches will be squeezed by an even shorter time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. May I just remind hon. Members that the guidance on time limits for speeches is six minutes, not nine minutes? It just bites into the next debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

To follow on from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), I have not seen this produced today, but I have in my hand the estimates book. The estimates for DEFRA, which we are supposed to be debating today, are contained within it. I must admit to feeling somewhat confused by today’s proceedings. As if Fridays in this place were not strange enough, today has been a real eye-opener. I have not heard any discussion surrounding the figures estimated for DEFRA, and I have heard no critical analysis of departmental spend within those figures. As my hon. Friend acknowledged to me and made clear, this is the stage at which we as Scottish MPs are supposed critically to analyse the estimates to deal with the consequences of policy and UK legislation, but there appears to be little, if no, discussion. However, I want to discuss a few points from the estimates within the books today, which I assume will be in order.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am afraid that, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not in order. I ask him to discuss the subject for debate stated on the Order Paper, which has been chosen by the Liaison Committee. This issue arose when the estimates were debated last year. I will be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman moves on to the subject that is on the Order Paper.

[Richard Arkless]

I was not here the last time the estimates were discussed. Am I not allowed to discuss the figures within the estimates; is that what the Chair is telling me?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Today we are specifically discussing flood prevention, not what is in the book to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are discussing flood prevention, which was chosen by the Liaison Committee. The point the hon. Gentleman makes was raised last year, and I am sure we can find other avenues to discuss it further, but right now the topic for debate is just flood prevention.

[Richard Arkless]

Needless to say, we will be taking these points to the appropriate arena, when done.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you give some clarification? The title of the motion on the Order Paper is, I accept:

“Supplementary Estimate: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Subject for debate: Future flood prevention)”

However, the text of the motion states:

“That, for the year ending with 31 March 2017, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

(1) further resources, not exceeding £420,838,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 946”,

which is the document that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) was speaking to. Is the ruling of the Chair that, in fact, the contents of HC 946 as they relate to DEFRA are not for debate in this estimates debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes, if the hon. Gentleman looks again at the Order Paper, he will see that the notes below—which are in very small print—state:

“This Estimate is to be considered in so far as it relates to future flood prevention (Resolution of 21 February).

The Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the above Motion will be deferred until 7.00 pm on Tuesday 28 February”.

That is the critical element in this regard.

[Richard Arkless]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In common with many Members, I represent a constituency that is susceptible to flooding and has flooded, quite dramatically, twice over the last three years. I have been interested in many of the points made by hon. Members; it has been a well-informed debate, with lots of excellent, pertinent points made.

The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is no longer in her place, talked about the stop-start nature of the process of flood management across the rest of the UK and about a lack of strategic planning, which has become apparent in this debate today. She talked about businesses being affected by flooding, and there are some specific issues that I questioned the Minister about before and to which she gave some helpful answers, which I will touch on later in my speech.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) support my calls and express some concern about the availability of affordable insurance to small businesses; I will mention that later. We know that the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) has a passion for trees and everything horticultural, and she talked a lot about land management and the contribution that land management techniques can make to reduce the risk of flooding.

One of the major debates in my constituency has been the extent to which land management techniques can significantly mitigate the risk of flooding. When towns in my constituency have flooded, we have found it very difficult to find an expert who could say that felling the trees, tidying the riverbanks or dredging a river would have made a significant difference to the risk of flooding. It appears that the one thing that contributes most to the risk of flooding, which is not really in the public’s mind, is the huge amount of rainfall. There is some way to go in the debate about, and public consciousness of, the things that contribute to the risk of flooding and the things that can mitigate it.

I was interested, as always, to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). She rightly talked about bringing people together, and all MPs with constituencies susceptible to flooding will have been impressed by how stakeholders and members of the public came together. It was humbling to see that in action. But I must say that she broke the House of Commons record for plugging her constituency and praising her Front Bench, all within a six-minute speech—that girl will go far.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made an excellent speech and gave the House an excellent summary of the report. He focused on the contrast between the Committee’s experiences in Holland, which adopts a principle of proactivity and strategic management and regards flooding as a social issue, and the strategy in the UK, which seems unpredictable and tends to concentrate on managing consequences in emergencies. That tactic needs to change.

The Select Committee’s report is one of the relevant documents listed on the Order Paper—to which this debate is restricted—and there is a section on page 23 on business insurance. In many of the towns in my constituency, there are perhaps 30 to 40 small businesses on either side of the high street, which might on occasions be flooded. When those businesses try to get affordable insurance, they can often get a policy with manageable premiums but the excess is completely unmanageable. It is often £15,000 or more. If that main street were to flood again, none of those businesses would be able to pay the excess.

I am concerned to see the assessment on page 23 of the report, which states:

“Defra does not consider there to be a market failure in provision of appropriate business insurance for those located in flood risk areas.”

The report talks only about the cost and availability of policies; it does not discuss the excesses. Were manageable excesses among the criteria that the Department considered when it made the judgment that there had not been a market failure? I was surprised to read the figures from the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations that thought that only a small percentage of businesses had these problems. That is not my understanding of what is happening in my constituency. This is a very difficult issue that has the potential to put swathes of our high streets out of business. I accept the argument that participants in the Flood Re scheme should not be made to pay for businesses, but some other kind of scheme needs to be made available. There is a clear market failure here and it needs to be dealt with.

The approach in Scotland is not perfect, but it seems to be more advanced than in the rest of the UK. We have a statutory basis for our flood management plan. We passed the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act in 2009, which compelled all 32 authorities across Scotland to come up with flood management plans. They have all done so: 42 flood defences are in the pipeline and 80% of the money has been committed by the Scottish Government. Four of those schemes are in my constituency, and I look forward to the conclusion of the process in 2022, when all those flood defences will be built and we will be looking at the next round of strategic planning in Scotland.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double]

I will happily give way—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. It is the end of the hon. Gentleman’s three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) for affording us this opportunity, albeit a rather short and curtailed one. The one guarantee I think we can assume we will have at the end of this debate is that we will return to these issues again and again—not least those of us who represent rural constituencies.

I do not think anybody would doubt the passion and concerns in this debate, not least about the impact of the hard Brexit we have heard about today. In my county of Ceredigion, small family farming is critical to the local economy and to the sustainability of our rural communities. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and those on the SNP Benches about the multiplier effect—the effect on single family farms and the potential loss of business in the wider community—should not be lost.

Farming is crucial to Wales’s economy. It is described by some as Wales’s last great industry, employing 58,000 people directly, with many more jobs created indirectly, and outputting £1.5 billion of produce each year. Some 13% of the people in my constituency are employed on the land, and farming has a hugely significant effect on the broader economy.

The UK’s food and drink sector as a whole is the fourth largest exporting sector in our country and is worth over £12 billion a year to our economy, with 72% of its exports going to the EU. The Welsh figures are somewhat higher.

The Government say they will keep their negotiating cards close to their chest, but that should not mean a lack of the long-term assurance—the certainties many have mentioned this afternoon—that is needed by those industries that need to plan years ahead at a time. Concern and anxiety are very much the order of the day among the small hill farmers I represent, who are operating on the margins and on a support regime—it is not something they want to exist in perpetuity, but they are concerned that, without transitional arrangements, with the rug pulled from beneath their feet, they could be on the edge of a cliff, which could have huge impacts.

Glyn Roberts, the president of the Farmers Union of Wales, said:

“Careful and precise statements are needed now more than ever.”

The reality is that we still await detailed, careful, precise statements. Yes, let us have guarantees about funding up until 2020, but a three-year window in which to plan a business is inadequate; it needs to be greater—we need far greater certainties. Glyn Roberts also said:

“The livestock producers which make up the vast majority of Welsh farmers are particularly reliant on exports to the continent, and we have made it clear since the referendum that full and unfettered access is essential to Wales.”

He went on to say that he was concerned that a deal was being floated with New Zealand for reasons of political expediency, and that gaining a market of 4.5 million customers on the other side of the planet—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. After the next speaker, there will be a limit of two minutes. I ask Members to bear it in mind that if anybody makes an intervention, the last few remaining speakers may not get in.

UK Fishing Industry

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it parliamentary to talk about “two-faced language” when I have just explained that I was wholly misrepresented by that ridiculous video?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I would have jumped up anyway if the right hon. Gentleman had not. I think that the hon. Lady should withdraw “two-faced”.

[Dr Whiteford]

I will withdraw “two-faced”, although I said that it was that type of two-faced behaviour that discredits politicians. I did not make any reference to the right hon. Gentleman, although I think my context is very clear. I am happy to withdraw.

Arguably the biggest opportunities for the fishing industry in the current scenario will be: the ability to negotiate more effectively on our own behalf in future negotiations, rather than as part of the EU; and the possibility of securing a fairer share of the resources in our waters. A report published in October by the NAFC Marine Centre demonstrated that more than half the fish harvested in Scottish waters is caught by non-UK boats. I do not understand how anyone can see that as fair and equitable. The situation cannot be allowed to continue, and it must be addressed as a priority.

Inevitably, the run-up to next week’s fisheries talks has been somewhat overshadowed in this debate by Brexit considerations, but there are two major issues that I want to bring to the Minister’s attention. The first is the implementation of the discard ban. I know that I have been banging on about this for years, but the situation is urgent. Even if article 50 were triggered tomorrow, our demersal fleet would still be subject to the ban in 2018 and 2019. I do not think that there is a realistic way of implementing it in its current form, and I also do not see how it can be easily enforced.

There is a consensus about the idea that it is undesirable to throw marketable fish back into the sea, but I am not sure that we are any nearer to finding a way to make the discard ban work in the mixed fisheries of the North sea under our current quota allocations and arrangements. It has been relatively straightforward to do so in the pelagic sector, but there is a major problem for the white fish fleet with so-called choke species, such as hake and saithe, which are abundant in our waters but for which we have insufficient quota. Selective gears, quota swaps and other avoidance measures will take us only so far, and we absolutely must not get ourselves into a position where boats are tied up because of this. That cannot be allowed to happen.

We should focus our energy on securing healthy stocks that are sustainably harvested. Reducing discards is obviously one part of that, but it is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. I hope that the Minister will make addressing the situation a priority at the December Council, because we urgently need a workable solution.

The other issue on which I want to push the Minister echoes a point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael): the untenable situation regarding the EU-Faroese bilateral deal on mackerel. The deal that was reached in 2014 allows the Faroese fleet to fish 30% of its coastal states share of mackerel in Scottish waters, and that is not an acceptable or sustainable position. I think that a reduction is an achievable goal, so I hope that the Minister will work for it.

Finally, I want to make a key point. Our fishing industry has unprecedented opportunities to recalibrate and to flourish on a sustainable footing, but the biggest risk that we face is that those potential opportunities will be squandered and traded away in the wider Brexit negotiations. We know that there will be many competing priorities in the days ahead, and it is vital that fishing is not simply thrown into that mix to be horse-traded away against bigger, more powerful and more vocal industries, or strategic interests, as we try to secure trade deals. We need to recognise that our abundant fishing grounds are an invaluable natural resource and that we have a responsibility to steward them sustainably in the interests of our maritime communities and for future generations. Fishing has probably more at stake in this process than any other UK industry. I want assurances from the Minister that we will not see a repeat of the 1970s, when fishing interests were subjugated to other strategic economic priorities. The UK Government considered fishing to be expendable at that time, but they must not treat those industries as expendable now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. There is still an informal limit of seven minutes, but it has been broken every single time since I have been in the Chair. Unless we stick to it, I will have to apply a formal limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

That is quite clearly happening. I subscribe to what the hon. Gentleman says. Boats from Portavogie were boarded by the UK Border Agency in the Clyde the week before last and had to return home single-handedly, which should never have happened.

It is easy to identify the problems; the question is how to fix them. One huge step forward was taken on 23 June when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted to leave the EU. I have every confidence in that, as we move forward to the future. Every man, woman and unborn child in Portavogie voted to leave the EU, as did the majority of people in my constituency.

At her party conference a few months ago, the Prime Minister unveiled the great repeal Bill and discussed the proposal whereby, come Brexit day, much EU legislation could be transposed into UK legislation. It is logical to conclude that 40-plus years of European legislation cannot be replaced overnight, and that it will take time systematically to work through it and to replace and amend diktats from Brussels to make them fit for purpose. Nevertheless, the fishermen I represent did not vote to leave the EU only to have the common fisheries policy replicated in UK law.

When it comes to the negotiations, the Minister needs to be aware that the CFP, as it is now, is certainly not one that the fishermen of Portavogie want to see replicated in the future. There are some things we need to keep, but not that. Portavogie had 130 boats when we joined the EU; there are now 65 boats, which is down to EU red tape, bureaucracy and a stranglehold, preventing people from moving forward.

There are those in Northern Ireland who do not understand why fishermen voted for Brexit. The reality of what my constituents had to cope with could be summed up by one EU rule—the Hague preference. Since 1991, that EU rule, which was enshrined in the last review of the CFP, has effectively forced British fishermen in the Irish sea—predominantly those from Northern Ireland—to surrender more than 10,000 tonnes of cod, valued at almost £30 million, to their colleagues in the Republic of Ireland. That is but one instance in which our colleagues in the Irish Republic may express solidarity with their friends in Northern Ireland, but reality speaks louder than words. It will be interesting to see how matters progress.

The Hague preference regime affects more than just the UK’s allocations of cod in the Irish sea, but cod is often regarded as the iconic species for our entire fishing industry. The cod wars of the 1970s in Iceland were the manifestation of a policy that witnessed the demise of the UK’s distant water fleet, with fishermen displaced into British waters which, by that stage, were under the competence of Brussels. We well remember the solidarity that was afforded to the UK’s fishermen by European colleagues during those tense days: we remember what they did for us.

I am keen to make progress, because I am conscious of the time. In 2008 the EU agreed what was described as a long-term cod management plan. Thanks to my party colleague in the European Parliament, Diane Dodds, the cod plan has been “defanged”, if I may adopt a phrase used by industry. At a stroke, the unjustified cuts in total allowable catches that have remained a feature in the Irish sea can be stopped—and indeed, I hope, reversed—in 2017. We are eager to maintain sustainable fisheries.

The maximum sustainable yield highlights another inconsistency in EU policy. Other Members have mentioned the imminent introduction of the discard ban, so I will not say a great deal about it now, but according to the EU, which effectively drafts the advice provided by ICES, more cod equals a zero TAC, against the background of a discard ban. One EU policy means that cod cannot be retained on board, while another means that they cannot be discarded. There is no logic in that. Illogical and inconsistent policies from the EU contribute to the undermining of confidence in the fishing industry, and hence to a lack of new recruits to the fleet.

I have three asks for the Minister. Pragmatic and sustainable fisheries management in the Irish sea calls for decisions at the EU‘s December Fisheries Council that will secure a realistic cod TAC that reflects bycatches in the nephrops and haddock fisheries, an increased TAC for area 7 prawns reflecting the positive scientific advice that is already on record, and at least a 60% increase in the haddock TAC, reflecting the valuable resource that is available for harvesting today. Those decisions cannot be delayed.

Brexit clearly offers many opportunities for our fishing industry to contribute to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I get frustrated sometimes when I hear the negativity coming through. We start from where we are: our island nation is surrounded by some of the most productive seas in the world, which produce a resource of which so many others have been eager to avail themselves. Let us hope that our fishermen, and British fishermen, avail themselves of that resource. That will enable us to grow our marine economy and specifically our fishing industry, and to secure a traditional UK industry that UK citizens can be proud to be part of. In the meantime, Minister, I ask you and the Government to work with the industry, during what is a transitionary period, to resolve the issues on non-EEA crew.

On Wednesday morning, in Westminster Hall, there was a debate on the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. The Minister referred to Marine Products Exports Development Authority schemes. I suggest an MPEDA scheme to deal with the EEA issue. We need to keep our ships and boats on the sea. I have asked for a meeting with the relevant Minister, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and I will attend with all our local fishing representatives.

I wish you well in your negotiations, Minister. I ask you to maintain and increase the quotas. We encourage you, Minister: you have our full support as you proceed with the negotiations.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, they are speaking to the Chair. The Minister should be referred to in the third person.

Snares

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, the Government sneaked out, alongside 29 other written statements, confirmation of a major increase—2.8% in 2017-18—in tuition fees. Two days ago in the House, when we debated the Higher Education and Research Bill, Ministers made no reference to this. Is it not disgraceful that they should use this cynical last-day-of-term mechanism? Have you had any indication that a Minister is available to answer questions from colleagues before we disappear for five and a half weeks?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I should point out that we are coming to the pre-recess Adjournment debate. If he would like to mention that in the debate, he is more than welcome to do so, and I am sure that the Treasury Bench will take it to the relevant Minister. If he would like me to add him to the list or if he wishes to catch my eye, I will see what I can do.

Flooding

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House extends its sympathy to all those affected by recent floods and its gratitude to the emergency services, armed forces and volunteers who rallied round to help afflicted communities over the holiday period; notes the damage the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s cuts, which the National Audit Office estimates amounted to 10 per cent over the course of the last Parliament, excluding emergency funding, have caused to these communities; notes that by delaying or cutting new flood defence projects or neglecting maintenance of existing flood defences, the Government has failed to protect these communities; notes with concern the recent decision by the Scottish Government to impose a six per cent cut on funding to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency; believes that there has been a dismal lack of action by the Cabinet Committee set up after the floods of 2013-14 and questions the effectiveness of the newly-created Cabinet Committee under the same leadership; further believes that the UK needs a long-term plan which includes a complete rethink of flood defences, as proposed by the Environment Agency, measures to make homes, communities and infrastructure more flood resilient and a greater focus on flood prevention, particularly through uplands and water catchment management; and calls on the Government to commit to the figure that the Environment Agency said in 2014 was required to protect communities of £800 million per year on maintenance and strengthening of flood defences and to carry out an urgent, independent, public review of flood policy.

I know that very many Back-Bench speakers want to take part in this debate. I will therefore try to limit the number of interventions because it is important that, above all, we hear from people whose constituents have been affected by flooding over the Christmas period.

Unfortunately, this is the second Opposition day in less than a month when we have had to call a debate on flooding. We were grateful for the statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs yesterday, but there were too many unanswered questions for the communities that have been devastated by the floods. I hope that today we will hear more answers.

At the outset, I put on the record again our thanks for the outstanding work of the emergency services, the armed forces and the very many volunteers who responded to the floods over the holiday period. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. There are a lot of private conversations going on and it is quite difficult to hear the shadow Secretary of State. Perhaps we could listen because this is a serious subject that has affected many of our constituents.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I appreciate that the Secretary of State chaired Cobra and sought to ensure that there was a swift response to the crisis over Christmas, but we cannot keep relying on emergency responses and on communities going above and beyond to help each other. There is a worrying air of complacency about the Government. Ministers have failed to prioritise flood prevention, despite the national security risk assessment citing flood risk as a tier 1 priority. We would not ignore experts’ warnings on terrorism or cyber-attacks, so why have the Government repeatedly disregarded expert advice on flooding?

The Committee on Climate Change gave flood adaptation a double-red warning and urged the Government to develop a strategy to protect the increasing number of homes that are at risk of flooding—sound advice that the Government inexplicably rejected. People who have been forced out of their homes need to know why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is down on my list to speak. I suggest he does not make his speech now.

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have already said, if we compare the two Parliaments, the Labour Government spent £1.5 billion and the coalition Government spent £1.7 billion. It is clear to me which of those two numbers is higher.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

What the hon. Gentleman says about his constituents is clearly heartfelt, but they are surely concerned—I speak for my mother, who is one of them—about the 6% cut that the Scottish Government are imposing on flood defences. Is he really going to defend that? [Interruption.] Is he going to defend the cut to SEPA, or is he going to—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not seem to be able to continue as SNP Members are chuntering so much. I am trying to speak over them, but they are so noisy that I cannot seem to get a word in edgeways. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Although I am enjoying the intervention, a lot of Members wish to speak. I would be very grateful if we could keep interventions as brief as possible, otherwise we will not get everybody in to speak.

[John Woodcock]

Why is the hon. Gentleman defending the 6% cut to SEPA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The third party spokesman—I highlight that the Scottish National party is the third party—has now been speaking for as long as the Minister chose to speak. What guidance was given to the third party on the length of speech it should give in a limited-time debate on an Opposition day?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) was coming to the conclusion of his speech anyway but, as the third party, no time limit is imposed, so he is perfectly at liberty to speak for as long as he wants. Many interventions were accepted, which lengthens speeches. I will allow him to finish his speech.

[Richard Arkless]

In a sense, I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). This is a very energised debate—[Interruption.] And I am coming to the end of my speech, so the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) should not have to wait too much longer.

What we have in Dumfries and Galloway—I imagine that this is replicated UK-wide—is the resilience of our people. I was struck that café owners trawled the streets, trying to give people food—but no one was hungry. I was amazed that residents affected were in competition with each other to say, “Och wur fine, Richard,” when really they were not. We should never take that resilience for granted and it should never diminish our responsibility to deal with what I think is a new problem for a new generation. The weather is not going to get any better, so we must up the ante to ensure that our communities are protected in the future.

Local Flooding

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

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

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is very distressing for families when they have a loved pet stolen. Compulsory microchipping of all dogs will make it far easier to detect such crimes, and we will issue guidance to vets and others that if they suspect a dog might have been stolen, they should report that to the relevant authorities.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

12. When she plans to implement schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

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

Following significant discussions with local government and others and a formal consultation, the statement on 18 December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government set out a simple way to clarify maintenance responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, in response to Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendation. That comes into effect in April, but we will keep it under review. Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 remains available for implementation.

[Natascha Engel]

Many people in North East Derbyshire who are moving into newly built homes are finding themselves knee-deep in sewage every time it rains, because the drains cannot cope with the extra capacity. That is a direct result of the sustainable drainage systems part of the 2010 Act still not having been implemented. When does the Minister plan to implement it, and what has been the delay?

[Dan Rogerson]

It is being implemented, and the provision to do so has been taken forward in collaboration with my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. We think it will make a real difference. If the hon. Lady has particular issues that she would like to raise with me about the situation in her area, I would be happy to hear from her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

It is always nice to hear from the hon. Gentleman with his cheery disposition so early in the morning. He probably did not hear my reply to the previous question, in which I said that we are talking about the repatriation of controls whereby countries around a sea basin will have greater management of our fisheries. The wider question about whether we should have a common fisheries policy at all probably is not for this forum but is, perhaps, for a higher pay grade. He is welcome to take part in the frequent debates that we have in the House on this matter.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

5. What her policy is on the use of electronic training aids for cats.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

DEFRA has neither commissioned nor evaluated any specific research on electronic training aids for cats. DEFRA is currently awaiting the publication and evaluation of recent research on the use of electronic training collars for dogs, before making any decisions on whether to introduce any proposals relating to those devices.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Minister for that answer, because 250,000 cats are killed on the roads every year. Containment fences and electronic devices help to keep cats safe, and they are completely different from the electronic collars used on dogs. Will he guarantee that, when his Department consults on banning the use of electronic collars, he will distinguish between cats and dogs and work closely with the group, Feline Friends, which is based in North East Derbyshire—my constituency?

[Mr Paice]

I think I can confirm to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction that we have no plans to do anything about training aids for cats. Indeed, the research on dogs that I referred to relates only to collars, not to what is known as the invisible fence. We therefore have no such proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I have just won my bet that my hon. Friend would raise that issue, and she is entirely right to do so. I share her concerns about the application of the Reservoirs Act and its implications for Pickering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the site. We want to do all we can to ensure that the scheme goes ahead, because we think that it is a good example of how biodiversity, slowing up water, and flood protection can fit together in many areas. We want her constituents to know that the Government will look into any means possible to ensure that such schemes go ahead.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with representatives of supermarket retail chains on the effects of pricing on the pig industry.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I discussed the supply chain and the competitiveness of all those involved at the review meeting of the pigmeat supply chain taskforce in February. The taskforce meeting included the major retailers and pigmeat processors and producers. However, for competition reasons, Ministers cannot discuss prices directly with retailers.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the Minister for that answer. When will the supermarket ombudsman be in place, and will he have the power to ensure that supermarkets pay a fair price for British pork?

[Mr Paice]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have published the draft Bill on the supermarket code adjudicator, and we hope that the real legislation will come forward very soon. The purpose of the adjudicator, as recommended by the Competition Commission, is to enforce the code, which has been in place since February 2010. He or she will not be able to intervene directly in prices or margins, but will intervene in issues to do with fair competition, and fair terms and conditions for suppliers.