Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
On 4 June 2013, Official Report, column 92WS, I informed the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I had asked Professor Chris Elliott to carry out an independent review into the integrity and assurance of food supply networks following the horsemeat fraud. I would like to inform the House that Professor Elliott published his interim report today, it is available at: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications and copies are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The report recognises UK consumers have some of the safest food in the world. It highlights the key characteristics of a food supply network which protects consumers and enhances the reputation of the British food industry and in particular the steps needed to deal with the threat of food fraud.
My right hon. Friend and I welcome the interim report which affirms the complex nature of food fraud, with its possible links to serious organised crime. The horsemeat fraud earlier this year demonstrated the international context and complexity of food crime.
Significant action is already being taken to prevent and identify food crime. We have increased unannounced inspections of meat cutting plants. We are working with the European Commission and other member states to establish an EU-wide food fraud unit. We are undertaking a study to test that products which are labelled as from the UK are genuine. We have increased Food Standards Agency (FSA) funding to £2 million to support local authorities’ delivery of the national co-ordinated programme of food sampling.
The UK Government continue to work closely with the European Commission, other European member states and Europol to share information to strengthen reporting mechanisms for food fraud. We are already working with the European Commission to identify further targeted sampling programmes and how they might be implemented. I am bringing the interim report to the attention of the European Commission as its findings can contribute to activity to combat food fraud at European-level as well as in the UK.
Professor Elliott’s report recognises the leading role of the food industry, placing responsibility for delivering a food supply to consumers which is safe, resilient and free from crime, firmly on food businesses. EU food law makes it clear that it is the responsibility of food business operators to ensure that the food they sell is safe and is as described. The need for a more standardised audit process and the need for a balance between random and routine testing, reflect concerns expressed during the horsemeat fraud incident. The food industry undertakes a rigorous testing programme to ensure food authenticity. For horsemeat alone, the results of over 31,000 tests have been reported to the Food Standards Agency over the past nine months, none of which post incident have tested positive. During the incident less than 1% of tests of beef products in the UK were positive for horsemeat, compared to over 4% in the Europe-wide testing programme. The Government will continue to work with food businesses and local authorities responsible for enforcement to ensure measures are effective and not burdensome. We are already working with the sector to generate better food fraud intelligence by identifying barriers and solutions to intelligence sharing. This includes work being led by the FSA to develop a new intelligence hub to improve its capability to identify and prevent threats to food safety and integrity, based on an approach used by police.
There are a number of recommendations for Government, for example on intelligence gathering, enforcement and laboratory capacity. This is an interim report. The Government will be interested in views from interested organisations on these, as we consider them and how they might work in practice before taking a definitive decision on any implementation. Significant action is already under way to address the threat of food crime and the Government want to ensure Professor Elliott’s review builds on the good work already being done to ensure that British food is not just among the safest in the world but also the most authentic.
This interim report provides a foundation for further discussion between the Elliott review, the food industry, Government and others, on how to effectively address the threat of food crime. The report makes clear that food crime prevention is essential to maintaining consumer trust and that this is something on which we must all work together to ensure the integrity of our food supply networks.
Professor Elliott will be working further on these issues in the coming months, with the Government, food businesses and others to strengthen the evidence base as he finalises his recommendations.
I look forward to updating the House on Professor Elliott’s final report in the spring.
European Environment Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I will represent the UK at the European Environment Council meeting in Brussels on 13 December. Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Environment and Climate Change in the Scottish Government, and Alun Davies, Minister for Natural Resources and Food in the Welsh Government, will also attend.
Following the adoption of the agenda and approval of the list of “A” items, the Council will hold an exchange of views on a proposal for a regulation on monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from ships. Presented by the Commission in July, the proposed regulation would apply to all ships above 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU member states’ ports. It would require CO2 emissions of these ships to be monitored on a “per voyage” and an annual basis, and to be reported and verified on an annual basis. The presidency has suggested two questions to be discussed relating to the scope and balance of the proposal.
After a series of AOB points relating to climate, the Council will then hold an orientation debate on a proposal for a regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. Published in September, the Commission’s proposal is intended to require member states to prevent, manage or eradicate such species. The debate is designed to assist and focus negotiations. It will seek views on whether the list of species to be subject to the regulation should be limited in number, whether they should only comprise species that are not native to the EU, how they should be selected and prioritised, and whether and how action at the biogeographic regional level should be provided for.
After further AOB points relating to the environment, Ministers will break for a working lunch. This will provide Ministers with the opportunity for a discussion on the post-2015 development framework.
Over the course of the day, the following topics will be covered under any other business:
Information from the presidency on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and the quality of petrol and diesel fuels.
Information from the C0P 19 presidency, the presidency of the Council of the EU and the Commission on the 19th session of the conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change.
Information from the presidency and the Commission on EU ETS/aviation.
Information from the Commission on a proposal to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags.
Information from the Greek delegation on the work programme for the incoming presidency.
Coastal Flooding
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
On Thursday and Friday last week, we experienced an exceptional coastal surge along the east and parts of the west coast of the UK. This caused flooding to around 1,400 properties and damage to infrastructure.
Our thoughts are with all those who have been affected by high winds and whose homes and businesses have been damaged during these powerful storms. However, through investment by Government and improvements to the way we manage this type of flooding, we were able to protect up to 800,000 properties which would otherwise have been flooded.
The extremely severe conditions were caused by a rare combination of factors. Very low atmospheric pressure over the North sea caused the sea level to rise. This, combined with the high astronomic tides and gale force winds, resulted in a tidal surge of unprecedented sea levels on some parts of the coast.
It is worthwhile comparing the events of last week with the storm surge of January 1953. The latter claimed the lives of over 300 people; 24,500 homes were damaged or destroyed and there was considerable damage to national infrastructure.
Two people lost their lives as a result of last week’s high winds and I offer my sincere condolences to their families. However no lives were lost as a result of flooding, and the numbers of homes, businesses and infrastructure affected were small in comparison to 1953. This serves to reinforce the importance of the recent and continuing investment that we have made in flood defence schemes and forecasting capability.
Response and impacts
The Government are grateful for the excellent response from our front-line emergency services. I pay tribute to the community spirit of ordinary people who have rallied round to help their neighbours in difficult times. I want to particularly praise the work of the Environment Agency, Met Office and Flood Forecasting Centre. There were also many local authorities which worked tirelessly to prepare for and respond to the surge as it happened.
We were organised and prepared. From the earliest signs of a possible surge threat, Government Departments and agencies, local resilience fora and local authorities were making preparations. I myself chaired three meetings of COBR on Thursday and a further COBR meeting on Friday. We were able to plan and co-ordinate the response to ensure the focus was on protecting communities at risk and the key infrastructure that supports them.
Over 160,000 homes and businesses received a flood warning and advice in advance to enable them to put their flood plans into action. Approximately 18,000 properties were evacuated in the afternoon and evening of Thursday 5 December along the coast from towns and villages including Great Yarmouth, Boston, Clacton-on-Sea and Sandwich.
Over 100 specialist flood rescue teams and their equipment were on standby across the country as part of the national asset register managed by the fire and rescue service national co-ordination centre. A number of strategic holding areas for these flood rescue teams and equipment were established in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, utilising vital equipment which had been mobilised from across the country.
The extreme conditions of last week put sea defences to their greatest test in 60 years. Record tidal surge levels were experienced at many locations, including at North Shields, Whitby, Hull, Immingham and Dover. In Wales, Rhyl was badly hit with 250 properties affected. Some parts of the east coast experience such circumstances only once every 500 years.
Numerous assets and barriers were deployed along the coast, including at Goole, Great Yarmouth and Colne in Essex. Tidal barriers were operated at several locations including at Hull, which I have seen for myself and I understand worked well. Over £200 billion worth of property was safeguarded in London by the Thames barrier which was raised against the highest level it had faced since it started operating in October 1982.
Impacts were not confined to the east coast however, with the £23 million Warrington flood defence scheme being operated for the first time to reduce the flood risk to 1,500 properties from the River Mersey.
In addition to the coastal flooding, extremely high winds—primarily across northern England and Scotland—resulted in 370,000 homes being disconnected from power supplies on Thursday. Almost all of these had power restored before the weekend.
As well as damaging homes, businesses and infrastructure, these storms also resulted in the flooding of agricultural land and sites of special scientific interest. A full assessment of these impacts will take place over the coming weeks.
Recovery
The multi-agency response to the surge event is now focusing on recovery. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has set up the Bellwin scheme to reimburse local authorities for their immediate costs caused by the storm surge.
In the next few days, the Government will be discussing with every local authority area affected by the flooding what further help they need to ensure places can quickly get back on their feet.
People who have had their home damaged or destroyed should contact their local authority for help with emergency re-housing. We have also asked the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to ensure its member firms stand ready to settle insurance claims promptly.
Flood management is a top priority for Government. It has a vital role to play in protecting people and property from the damage caused by flooding and delivering economic growth and supporting a strong economy.
That is why we are making record levels of investment in improvement projects. Between 2015-16 and 2020-21 we are on track to spend £2.3 billion on protecting people and property from flooding and coastal erosion. This long-term settlement will enable the Environment Agency and other risk management authorities to reduce the risk of flooding to a further 300,000 households between April 2015 and March 2021, on top of the 165,000 protected during the current spending period.
Our continued commitment to improving flood defences will help us to manage effectively any future incidents of this magnitude.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council will be on 16 and 17 December in Brussels. I will be representing the UK to cover the agricultural items while the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) who is responsible for farming, food and marine environment, will cover the fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neil MLA and Alun Davies AM will also attend.
This Council will largely deal with the fixing of the 2014 fishing opportunities in EU waters and the Black sea.
On agriculture the Commission will present their proposal for a regulation on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and third countries. There will also be a proposal for a Council regulation related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (sCMO).
This Council is also notable because the four regulations of the new common agricultural policy (CAP) and the CAP transitional regulation will pass through their final stage of approval. The Council plan to agree them as an “A point” on the agenda. This will allow the regulations to be finally published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
There are currently seven any other business items;
European maritime and fisheries fund (EMFF);
Amendment of an EU directive on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (“NEC directive”);
Conference on “The EU dairy sector: developing beyond 2015” (Brussels, 24 September 2013);
Public consultation results (organic farming);
Animal health/plant health/seeds/control/expenditure;
“Hybrid” nutrition labelling system recommended in some member states;
Market access to the Russian Federation concerning EU exports of plants and plant products.
Bovine TB
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
A key element in the comprehensive strategy this Government are finalising to eradicate bovine TB (bTB) in England within 25 years is successfully tackling the disease reservoir in the badger population.
Culling is only one part of our approach to tackle the spread of TB. We are using every tool available including tougher movement controls for cattle (the latest of which I announced to the House on 28 November, 2013, Official Report, column 23WS), better biosecurity on farms and working to develop effective and usable cattle and badger vaccines. We continue to make good progress on all aspects of our draft strategy to eradicate the disease in England within 25 years.
The two badger control pilots, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, were designed to test the assumption that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers.
Natural England granted an eight-week extension in Gloucestershire on 23 October, in line with the chief veterinary officer’s (CVO’s) advice.
Today I am announcing to the House that the extension period in Gloucestershire concluded on Saturday 30 November at the behest of the cull company and the National Farmers Union (NFU), with the agreement of Natural England to coincide with the end of the open season for cage trapping.
The aim of the extension was to achieve the earliest and greatest possible impact on bTB in the area, in line with the CVO’s advice that a further significant reduction of the badger population in the first year would increase the likelihood of disease benefits in cattle over the full four years of the cull.
The decision to extend has been shown to be the right one, with significant numbers of badgers removed at the point that the extension was ended. In the additional five weeks and three days of culling, 213 badgers have been removed, giving an overall total of 921. This represents a reduction of just under 40% in the estimated badger population before culling began.
The extension in Gloucestershire has therefore been successful in meeting its aim in preparing the ground for a fully effective four year cull. In the randomised badger culling trial there was a range of culling effectiveness across the 10 areas in the first year of the culls, but the trial still showed overall benefits at the end of sustained culling and these benefits have been maintained for at least a further seven years. The two pilots in Gloucestershire and Somerset have similarly shown a range of culling effectiveness and at the end of four years of sustained culling long-term overall benefits can be expected to be delivered.
The independent panel of experts will now consider the information collected during the pilots on the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. This will inform my decision on the wider roll-out of badger control in those parts of England most severely affected by this disease. The independent panel of experts report will be made available to Parliament and the general public at that time.
While there are important lessons to learn, completing two pilots this year has been a significant achievement and is another major step towards halting the spread of bTB.
I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who have undertaken the pilots in both areas, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority who resorted to widespread criminality in their determination to stop this disease control policy.
It is unacceptable that in the ten years to 31 December 2012, more than 305,000 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts in Great Britain. Moreover, since 1 January to August, a further 22,512 otherwise healthy cattle have been slaughtered solely because of bovine TB.
Controlling the disease in wildlife is and will remain a key part of our TB strategy—no country has successfully dealt with TB without tackling the disease in both wildlife and cattle. This Government are resolved to do this.
Achieving this aim will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. This Government are committed to tackling the disease in all reservoirs and by all available means.
Bovine TB
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I wish to inform the House of some further important steps that the Government are planning to take to tackle bovine TB (bTB). BTB is the most worrying and costly animal health problem facing our cattle farmers today, with more than 305,000 cattle slaughtered in Great Britain in the past decade alone. These plans are designed to address the risk of cattle-to-cattle transmission of the disease. They form part of the Government’s wider strategy for achieving national bovine TB-free status in England within 25 years.
Today I am announcing our approach for addressing a number of long-standing weaknesses in our bovine TB controls. The first concerns the problem of late TB tests by a small minority of cattle farmers. Late testing is unacceptable, so from 1 January 2014 anyone who fails to complete their test by the set deadline, even by one day, will see their CAP scheme payment reduced. The reductions will vary, depending on the seriousness of the case, but the outcome I want to see is no late testing at all.
I am also launching a consultation on proposals for further tightening of cattle controls. Our proposals build on the raft of enhanced cattle measures that have been in place for many years, a number of which were enhanced in 2012. They include abolishing the pre-movement testing exemption for movements of cattle to and from common land. In doing this, we will need to find ways of ensuring that the testing requirements do not prejudice the very important part that grazing on some commons plays in protecting and maintaining valuable habitats.
The proposals also include phasing out the practice of lifting bovine TB restrictions on parts of a restricted holding. In future the whole of a holding would be either restricted or officially TB free any one time.
I am also consulting on proposals that would, as a last resort, enable wild or untestable cattle to be culled. It is important that we have the means to take action in exceptional cases where cattle of unknown disease status cannot be safely tested.
The final proposal in this consultation is designed to respond to the Members of this House, and their constituents, who have pressed the Government to make available information on the location of bovine TB herd breakdowns, so that livestock farmers are better equipped to deal with the local risks to their herds. This would build on the risk-based trading scheme launched earlier this month, which encourages farmers to share details of the disease history of any cattle they sell so buyers are better able to manage any disease risks.
I recognise that these rigorous measures will be tough for a significant minority of livestock businesses. However, we will not achieve the aims of our strategy, and be able to guarantee the future of the thriving cattle industry we all wish to see, without tackling all of the vectors by which this disease can spread. That is why I remain committed to doing everything possible to get on top of and eradicate this devastating disease in both wildlife and cattle.
Water Bill
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am delighted to present a Bill that reflects my twin priorities of growing the economy and improving the environment. The Bill will promote growth for the long term, improve the resilience of our water supplies and the environment and increase choice for customers. Our White Paper on water sets out a vision for the future of the water sector. We need continued investment in our water and sewerage systems. We need investment in storing water and moving it to where it is needed; investment in maintaining our sewerage network and improving drainage, including through sustainable drainage options; investment that will protect our rivers through improvements to water quality; action to address over-abstraction; and investment in greater water efficiency.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Given that the Secretary of State says that it is designed to protect the environment, will he agree to amend the Bill to require fracking companies to have a full liability guarantee to cover a range of eventualities before an environmental permit is allocated? He will know that even if liability is proven, if the companies go bust the costs will still be passed on to the taxpayer, or to the water companies, which in turn will pass them on to the customer.
Mr Paterson
On the issue of fracking, I have made it absolutely clear that we will in no way dilute or diminish any of the existing regulations relating to the extraction of hydrocarbons from underground. A whole framework of different regulations is already laid down by European legislation, and we intend to respect them, but there is great merit in developing fracking, as we have seen in the dramatic reduction in gas prices in the States, with huge benefit to the US economy. We think we will see similar merits in our economy.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
My constituency has a place called Barton Moss, which is to be explored for shale gas. It is next to a raised peat bog, which is one of the rarest and most precious resources in the country that has not been ruined by over-extraction. There are real concerns among my constituents about dewatering those precious mosslands. They see a real need for reform in the Bill to ensure that explorers or exploiters of shale gas do not dewater areas and that if there are any pollution incidents, there is a financial guarantee that they will be made to pay for what they do.
Mr Paterson
I have sympathy with the hon. Lady’s question; I have mosses in my own constituency. Let me reassure her that there is absolutely no intention to dilute or reduce in any way the rigour of our environmental regulation. I also remind her that on a visit to Washington, I spoke to the Environmental Protection Agency, which could not name a single case of water pollution from any of the 2 million wells that have been sunk in the United States. I think we should look at fracking with open eyes—we should recognise that oil has been extracted at Wytch Farm, for example, for decades almost within sight of a site of special scientific interest and a bird reserve—and, done properly, it is a thoroughly meritorious and worthwhile activity that will bring jobs and prosperity to this country.
Mr Paterson
I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind if I carry on, as the debate is about the Water Bill rather than fracking.
Earlier this year, we announced that the Bill would also include measures to deal with the availability and affordability of flood insurance. That is an important issue for many Members of the House and their constituents and I am glad that we are making progress on it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know, as a fellow Shropshire MP, that there is significant flooding in areas such as Shifnal and Albrighton in the east of the county in my constituency. What discussions has he had with the Association of British Insurers to ensure that people have access to affordable flood insurance?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his question. I shall come on to that in a minute, but we have had exhaustive and extensive discussions with the ABI to ensure that the statement of principles is succeeded by a new regime, on which I shall elaborate in a few minutes.
The main focus of the Bill is reform of the water industry. Reform will provide more choice for non-household customers and bring new entrants into the market. It will use the power of competition to drive efficiency, innovation and benefits to the environment.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As somebody who strongly welcomes the introduction of competition, why will not the Secretary of State allow competition for everybody? If it is really a natural monopoly, nothing will happen and no harm will be done, but if it is not, we could all get the benefit of competition with lower prices and the quality of water we want.
Mr Paterson
As my right hon. Friend knows, I have total sympathy with that position. I am quite clear that as an aspiration universal competition is worth while. Our problem is that we want to take the first step and take the wholesale route, which will bring immediate benefits and real efficiencies to major businesses, but it is hard to move down to a household level, where the gains are much smaller because of the narrow margins, until we have universal metering. At the moment, metering is at about 40% and we need to move closer to universal metering before we can reach the position with which he and I have much sympathy.
Privatisation of the UK water industry has seen the sector attract £116 billion in low-cost investment, enabling our infrastructure to be upgraded and environmental standards to be improved. I saw that for myself when I visited Northumbrian Water’s waste treatment site in Howdon. Its investment in anaerobic digestion is enabling it to process 500,000 tonnes of sewage every day that was previously dumped untreated in the North sea.
Our rivers are now cleaner than they have been for decades. Rivers that were previously classified as sterile or biologically dead are now supporting otters and salmon. A substantial programme of investment has also led to more than 82% of our bathing waters meeting the highest EU standard this year. That is a great example of improving the environment and growing the economy.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The Secretary of State will know that there has obviously been general support for a clean Thames, but the proposals for the Thames tunnel are still controversial. Will he update the House on whether the Government have concluded their discussions and negotiations with Thames Water about the mechanism to ensure, if we are to have a tunnel after the planning inquiry, that people in the Thames area do not pay through the nose for the privilege?
Mr Paterson
I am fully aware that that is a matter of enormous interest to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. To put it bluntly, it is not acceptable that we continue to put 20 million tonnes of untreated sewage in the Thames every year. We have considered a range of alternatives—I know that he has been advising on this—and have concluded, as did the previous Government, that the tunnel is the best solution. We continue to negotiate in detail with Thames Water on the arrangements that will lead to the conclusion of the project.
We now need to build on our success. The Bill will shape the way the industry develops over the next decade and beyond. It will build on the strengths of the regime and use increased competition to drive greater innovation and efficiency, which will benefit customers and make sure that our water supplies and natural environment are resilient.
The Bill shows that we are tackling affordability for the long term.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
My right hon. Friend says that we are going to improve the nation’s ability to capture and store water, thereby reducing abstraction. Will he be telling us later in his speech where the new reservoirs are to be built?
Mr Paterson
I will be moving on to that. I cannot tell my hon. Friend exactly where the new reservoirs will be because that will be down to the individual companies, according to local circumstances, but I can categorically assure him that I hope that the measures in the Bill will release a floodtide of new investment, potentially in new reservoirs, use of aquifers and transfer of water between water companies, to maximise use of the water that lands on this country. I remind him that 95% of that water ends up in the sea. We need to manage the water better before it gets there.
The Bill shows that we are tackling affordability for the long term. The package of reforms is designed to exert a sustained downward pressure on water bills and ensure affordable flood insurance for households in areas at high risk of flooding. We are well aware of the financial challenges that hard-working households are facing.
Earlier this month I wrote to water companies asking them to consider whether to apply the full price increases next year that were planned for in the 2009 price review. I asked them to share the benefits of historically low financing costs with their customers. Ofwat is with me on this. It estimates that by taking account of lower financing costs, the next price review could reduce pressure on bills by between £120 million and £750 million a year from 2015, while still enabling companies to invest in high-quality services and the environment. This demonstrates once again how critical financing costs are to the bills that customers pay: 1% on finance costs leads to about a £20 increase in bills to customers. We must not undermine in any way the stable regulatory system which gives confidence to investors.
This Bills means that all business, charity and public sector customers in England will be able to choose their water supplier and, for the first time, their sewerage supplier. They will be able to shop around for the best deal and a package that suits them. Large water users could make savings by switching to a water supplier that offers them water efficiency advice and smart metering. We have seen how competition in Scotland is delivering real benefits to customers and to the environment. The public sector in Scotland is forecast to save £36 million over four years, thanks to better water efficiency and discounts. Customers in England deserve the same opportunities. Multi-site customers such as hospitals and supermarkets could save thousands of pounds in administration costs by dealing with only one water company.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I am fully aware that in the south-west we have significantly higher water rates—probably the highest in the country. The Government have noted that and uniquely have given customers of South West Water £50. Does my right hon. Friend think that competition will drive down bills in the south-west as well?
Mr Paterson
I have no doubt at all that we want more efficient water companies with more investment, which undoubtedly will lead to a cheaper product.
We are already seeing the first signs of a competitive market. In September, to answer my hon. Friend’s question directly, First Milk became the first multi-site customer to switch to Severn Trent Costain. The two companies are working together to improve First Milk’s water efficiency and lower its environmental impact, but these opportunities are limited at present because they are open only to the largest water users. The Bill will simplify the existing regime, providing clear rules of access and non-discriminatory pricing to attract new entrants to the market. We expect this expanded retail market to open in 2017.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about expanding the market and the smaller companies. However, the Canal & River Trust, a body supported on both sides of the House, is concerned that clause 12 will impact negatively not just on its ability to deliver its charitable objectives, but on its navigation functions and income. Will he have a close look at that and agree to meet representatives of the Canal & River Trust to discuss their concerns?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. We would be happy to meet the Canal & River Trust—it would be appropriate for the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), to do so, as he is taking the Bill through the House—but I think that it is being negative. With its wonderful and virtually national network, it has a real opportunity, because if we open up more upstream providers we will need a vehicle for moving water around. I take a very positive view of this for the Canal & River Trust. We are definitely happy to meet it.
We are not at this point offering choice to household customers. We are taking a step-by-step approach, gaining experience from a competitive business retail market first and reducing any risk to investment in the sector. We have seen in Scotland that competition tends to be around value-added services, rather than price, making the case for household competition less attractive. The conditions need to be right. For example, we would need much higher levels of metering before household competition was practical. Although household customers will not be able to choose their supplier, they will benefit from a framework that encourages water companies to put customers at the centre of decision making or risk losing market share. Ofwat will ensure that household customers do not subsidise the costs of increased competition.
I know that some water companies have asked for the option of exiting the retail market. The problem with that approach is that household customers could lose out because they would not have the ability to move to a new supplier, and if the incumbent water company keeps its household customers but disposes of its business customers, the householder is stranded with a company that has little incentive to provide a decent service. We are not prepared to risk that.
The Bill will also make it much easier for new businesses to enter the water market to provide new sources of water or sewage treatment services, known as upstream services.
Mr Charles Walker
On that point, will my right hon. Friend clarify something for me? What is a new source of water?
Mr Paterson
A new source of water is one that is not currently being used, so that could mean opening up old boreholes, or farmers building new reservoirs, or water companies building new reservoirs—we have not built a new reservoir in this country for over 30 years. There are all sorts of new sources of water. Around 95% of the water that lands on this country ends up in the sea. We want to manage it better before it gets there.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Secretary of State has just referred, as he did earlier in his speech, to “this country”. Which country does he mean?
Mr Paterson
Well, water lands on the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the Welsh aspect of the Bill, and I think that he knows that the Bill’s competition elements will not apply to customers in Wales.
Mr Redwood
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way once again—we are teasing out important points. Does he agree that there are quite a lot of rising water tables under the big towns and cities of this country, because they used to be tapped but no longer are? Is not that a good source of new water that competition could deploy?
Mr Paterson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. We used to have heavy industries in our cities that used large amounts of water, as I know well, having worked on Merseyside for 25 years. Merseyrail has had problems with water because so many of the extractive industries have gone. There is no problem with the volume of water; it is about getting it to the right place at the right time and by the right means. That is what I hope the Bill will facilitate.
Our reforms will increase water supplies by making it more attractive for landowners to develop new sources of water, or for innovative businesses to treat and dispose of waste water. Let me take a hypothetical example. If a brewery with its own borehole has spare capacity, it might be able to supply its pubs in the area more cheaply than they could be supplied by the local water company. The brewery could put its spare water into the water company’s supply system or work with a retailer providing broader services to those businesses.
We also want to make it easier for our farmers and land managers to develop new sources of water, such as on-farm reservoirs, and to hold water back. For example, a farmer with an on-site reservoir that more than meets the farm’s water needs could make an arrangement with either a licensee or the incumbent water company to enable it to put water into the supply system. The water could be supplied regularly or only at times of high demand. Either way, the farmer would have a new product that he could sell.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I applaud the Secretary of State’s notification that Northumbrian Water is doing great work at Howdon. On the creation of future reservoirs, how will we provide financial incentives for the farmers and other providers of such future reservoirs, whether big or small, to go ahead and do the necessary infrastructure planning for such operations?
Mr Paterson
It is known as the market; where there is demand, people will invest. We are hoping to create a new market for this product, and I am absolutely confident, given the freedoms we are releasing in this Bill, that there will be significant investment. We should not forget that £116 billion is an extraordinarily large amount of money that we would never usually have got from the Treasury under any Government of any colour. This is a great success. We want that investment to keep flowing in for exactly the sort of projects that my hon. Friend discusses.
For the first time, we are opening a market for businesses to recycle and reuse waste water as a new water resource. They will also be able to purchase sewage sludge that might otherwise have been sent to landfill—for example, for use in anaerobic digestion plants.
We need to increase the number of options that water companies can use to store and supply water to their customers. The solutions will vary across the country, reflecting different levels of water demand and availability, geography, and geology. For some, storing more water in new reservoirs or in recharged aquifers will help. Others, particularly in water-stressed areas, may need more action to cut demand, including through greater water metering. For others, improving interconnection to move water around between their supply systems will help. Companies such as Severn Trent, Anglian and Yorkshire Water collaborated on practical solutions during last year’s drought. This Bill will make such supply arrangements much easier to put in place. It will enable water resources to be used more flexibly and efficiently, reducing the need for expensive new solutions that customers would have to pay for.
The Bill provides flexibility for the regulator to work with the industry on shaping and introducing these new markets. It also includes checks and balances so that the Government can ensure consistency with our policy framework. We will be issuing guidance to Ofwat on how it must set the rules of the game. We have already published charging principles so that people can see how Government policy will shape the new regime. Since the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, we have strengthened the role of Government, with a power to veto Ofwat’s charging rules, and the new market codes. I am extremely grateful to Members of this House, especially those on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who scrutinised the draft Bill. The Bill is stronger as a result of that scrutiny.
Governments do not create successful markets. Well-functioning markets are created by participating businesses and are allowed to evolve over time. That is why the detailed work to develop these new markets is being delivered by the experts. Through the Open Water programme, we are working with the water industry, Ofwat, the Scottish Government, regulators and customers on the detailed work required to prepare for implementation of these new markets. We are committed to reforming the abstraction regime so that it is fit to face the challenges of the future.
Mr Charles Walker
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point, because it is such an interesting topic that I think he will have a lot to offer?
Mr Walker
Over the past 30 years, these so-called experts, particularly the water companies, have destroyed many of the chalk streams in my part of the country and in Wiltshire, Hampshire and Dorset—the list is almost endless. I therefore do not have a lot of confidence in them. They are very good at looking after their own interests but not the interests of the environment.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. I assure him that I take on board the damage that has been done by over-abstraction. However, this is extremely complicated and it is going to take time; we could make a real mess of things if we blunder into it. I am absolutely confident that through the upstream reforms that I mentioned, by holding more water back in various forms, which might be the reservoirs my hon. Friend wants, putting down aquifers, or SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—schemes, we will have water available for these rivers when they run dry. I totally sympathise with his worries about the chalk streams. It is very much our intention that this Bill will provide more water to keep these rivers flowing.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
I want to take my right hon. Friend back to his example of the brewery. He says that we will benefit from these upstream reforms and that water will be held back. Does he agree that when he is considering the regulatory framework it will be important to ensure that resources that have been used in one way previously and will be subject to change—for example, by the brewery drawing more water than it would have done in totality before—are assessed by various agencies to make sure that the strain on resources is not overbearing on the system in its entirety?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no point in over-abstracting from a new source. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, because of the reduction in heavy industry there are significant amounts of water in various parts of the country, and this is all a question of moving it around according to local circumstances. I know that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) have a real interest in abstraction. Our clear view is that the Bill will lead to a greater supply of water, which will help the rivers, about which my hon. Friends rightly worry, not to run dry.
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, although he does not look overly happy to be doing so. He kindly answered my earlier question about pollution, which is a real concern to my constituents. I am very concerned about mosslands in my constituency and the Secretary of State has said that he shares my concern. Lancashire Wildlife Trust and other organisations that protect the mosslands are very concerned about the possibility of de-watering, given that shale gas exploration is happening very close to our mosslands. Will the Secretary of State address that point?
Mr Paterson
I am happy to answer the hon. Lady. We are completely clear that we will not allow the procedure to go ahead if it is going to cause environmental damage. We have to respect a whole range of directives pertaining to water. We are absolutely clear that we will not weaken or dilute—to use a watery phrase—the robustness of our regulation. We will completely lose public confidence if we do that. This has to be done in a robust manner.
The hon. Lady should look at examples that I have cited, such as Wytch Farm, which has been extracting hydrocarbons for decades without any environmental damage at all and which is very close to some very sensitive environmental sites. If this is done professionally and regulated properly, the hon. Lady should have nothing to fear. I am as keen as she is to protect our wetlands, including mosses, and I am clear that we will not dilute in any way the rigour of our regulation.
To return to abstraction, I know that some people—we have heard from some of them—think that we are not moving fast enough. Reform of the regime is complex. It has been in place for 50 years and the changes will affect the businesses of abstractors up and down the country—businesses that require water for public supply, electricity generation, manufacturing and irrigation. We must get this right. Shaping a new regime involving up to 30,000 abstractions is complicated, so we will consult on our proposals soon.
Reform of the abstraction regime is only part of the story. We are taking action now to reduce the damage to rivers, such as the chalk streams that support some of Europe’s unique habitats. We are using and improving the tools we have now to vary and remove damaging abstraction licences. For example, we have already made changes to protect the River Darent and the River Itchen.
In this Bill we are making it easier to tackle damaging abstractions in advance of our wider reform by making funding of schemes to restore sustainable abstraction quicker and easier. We will not take any risks with the introduction of upstream reform. We have looked carefully, with both Ofwat and the Environment Agency, at the concerns that have been raised. I am satisfied that there are robust regulatory safeguards in place to prevent upstream competition from leading to environmental damage. We will also co-ordinate implementation. The new upstream markets will not open before 2019 and we expect to implement abstraction reform in the early 2020s so that we can make sure that these reforms are carefully co-ordinated.
Resilience was a central theme of our water White Paper and it is a central theme of this Bill. We listened to calls in pre-legislative scrutiny to make sure that it is also central to the way in which the sector is regulated. We have strengthened Ofwat’s role in safeguarding long-term resilience. The Bill includes a new primary duty to take account of environmental pressures, population growth and demand on our essential services. I know that some are keen for Ofwat’s existing sustainable development duty to become a primary duty. We have looked at the arguments for that change. People want Ofwat and water companies to address longer-term challenges and deliver a better deal for customers and the environment. We want to achieve that, too.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
If we really want to improve environmental stewardship, I would argue, as others have done to the Select Committee, that the statutory duty on sustainable development will put the Government in a better place than resilience.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Committee Chair for all her hard work. We have looked at the issue and believe that resilience means a stronger focus on longer-term planning and investment. By creating a new overarching duty specifically designed to increase the focus on long-term resilience, I think we will deliver what the Committee has been looking for. Resilience also means protecting the water resources that are so critical to current and future supplies. As I have said, ultimately 95% of water runs out to the sea, and the Bill will help to manage it more effectively.
Just as water reform measures will help our supply systems and environment to deal with water shortages, we must also be prepared for flooding. I have seen for myself how devastating it is to be flooded. This time last year, I visited Exeter and Kennford and saw the impact of the floods on people’s homes, lives and families.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman had any discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, because the Help to Buy scheme operates in areas where his proposed flood insurance scheme will not operate? It seems to me that one hand of the Government does not know what the other hand is doing.
Mr Paterson
Our planning guidance is absolutely clear that there should be no building on areas that are subject to flooding.
We know perfectly well that the priority must be to avoid flooding in the first place. That is why we will spend £2.3 billion over this Parliament on protecting households and businesses against flooding. In practical terms, that means that 165,000 properties will be better protected in 2015 than they were in 2010. It is also why we will make record levels of capital investment over the six years from 2015-16: the level will rise to more than £400 million per annum by 2020-21.
We need to give people at high risk of flooding the certainty that they can continue to get affordable flood insurance, as was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). We consulted on draft flood insurance proposals over the summer, and I know that hon. Members agree that a solution is essential for the continuing protection of people at high risk of flooding. We are still in intensive and constructive discussion with the insurance industry on some of the finer points of detail, but we plan to table new clauses in time for consideration in Committee. The powers in the Bill will help to ensure that affordable flood insurance is available for households in high-risk areas.
Mark Pritchard
My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way, as is his custom. In addition to those comments, he will know that there is often run-off from motorways and roads, so what discussions has he had with the Highways Agency and local government on that issue?
Mr Paterson
That issue is really for the Environment Agency, which works closely with the Highways Agency and local government to ensure that there is no pollution from water that runs off public roads.
Nia Griffith
The Secretary of State rightly says that we have discussed flood insurance for a considerable time. I very much welcome the Flood Re programme, but why is there not more detail in the Bill, and why will so much of it be pushed aside and dealt with as statutory instruments, when so many hon. Members want to discuss the detail more fully?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Lady takes rather a churlish attitude, as her Government did absolutely nothing to replace the statement of principles, despite knowing perfectly well that it would run out in June 2013. We have been involved in extremely detailed negotiations but, as she knows, the subject is very complex. I entirely agree that it would have been ideal to have detailed clauses ready in time for the Bill; sadly, they are not ready. She is, however, rather critical of those who may be members of the Committee. If she is lucky, she might get on to the Committee, because it will be able to debate those clauses in exhaustive detail.
Our preferred approach, which is known as Flood Re, will limit the amount that high-risk households have to pay on the flood insurance element of their premiums and excesses. The effective limit on the premium would vary according to council tax band, rising for more expensive properties, which means that benefits will be targeted towards lower-income households. Insurers have agreed to continue to meet their commitments under the 2008 statement of principles until the Bill has passed through Parliament and Flood Re has been set up.
Although Flood Re remains our preferred approach, we are seeking reserve powers to provide affordable cover if it should prove unworkable or prices in a free market prove unacceptable. Having a fall-back means that customers can have confidence that the issue is being addressed. All Government policies go through a rigorous economic impact assessment, but that cannot always represent the full range of benefits, such as the value of reducing the uncertainty for households over whether they will be able to afford flood insurance. Our preferred option, Flood Re, may require me to provide a ministerial direction. If that is the case, I will be happy to do so.
I am pleased that there is cross-party support for our proposed approach. There will be a fair deal for householders and taxpayers, and better choice for flood insurance customers. I am particularly grateful to the Association of British Insurers and the rest of the insurance industry for their co-operation and work in developing a sensible solution for homes that are at flood risk.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
My constituency is at massive risk of flooding because it is below sea level in many places. We require pumping 24 hours a day to keep us dry. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about Flood Re because getting flood insurance has been a problem for my constituents. However, there is concern among people who live in houses that were built after 2009 and there is concern about the development of our town, given that we are so susceptible to flood risk. Will he set out the Government’s thinking on properties that were built after 2009? Will any solution be offered for them in the future?
Mr Paterson
It is not our proposal to include those whose houses were built after 2009 if they were built on areas that are subject to flood risk.
In the Bill, the Government are seeking to put in place the long-term conditions for sustainable economic growth and the improved resilience of our water supplies and environment. We are also seeking to increase choice for the consumer, exert a sustained downward pressure on water bills and ensure that there is affordable flood insurance. The approach under the Bill is one of partnership —partnership between the Government, business, regulators, environmental organisations and the public. I look forward to working with colleagues and each and every one of those groups to make that a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Despite the sensible measures that are contained in the Bill, this is a wasted opportunity to tackle the impact that rising water bills are having on stretched household budgets. Water bills have increased by almost 50% in real terms since privatisation. With wages not keeping pace with inflation, that is adding to the cost of living crisis. Prices have risen faster than wages in 40 of the 41 months in which the Prime Minister has been in Downing street. People are more than £1,600 a year worse off on average under this Government.
The rising cost of water is adding to that pressure. However, the Bill fails to provide Ofwat with tougher powers to bring down prices and it fails to require water companies to help those who are struggling to pay their bills. Despite the promises from the Prime Minister that we would see action, the Secretary of State has not brought forward a single new measure. All that we have seen is one weakly worded letter to water bosses, begging them not to hike bills next year. There was not even a threat of action if they take no notice—no threat of a tougher regulatory regime and no threat to impose an affordability scheme.
Mr Paterson
I am very grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. It might rather spoil her argument if I pointed out that all the current prices were set by her Government in the last price review in 2009. Between 1999 and 2009—between the first and last price reviews under the last Government—water bills rose in real terms by £65, from £324 to £389, which is an increase of more than 20% in the average household bill. Today, under this Government, the price of the average bill is £388.
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be making a second speech. The previous Government were the only Government to see water bills cut during their time in office. We need to see a determination in the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that Ofwat has the proper powers to deal with water companies. He ought to remember, even if he is technically in favour—
Maria Eagle
I will not give way until I have finished answering the point the right hon. Gentleman has already made. Even if we get to such a point, there will be a significant period in which householders are subject to a monopoly. He must ensure that Ofwat has the relevant powers.
During our exchanges in the House in questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last Thursday, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what steps he had taken between meeting the water companies in July, which he referred to in his letter, and his follow-up letter to them this month. He was not able to list a single action because the truth is that he did nothing for four months until he began acting under orders from No. 10. That was after the Prime Minister decided that he had no choice but to appear interested in the issue, following an intervention from the Leader of the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman made it clear in his letter to the water companies that he favours a voluntary approach, with companies deciding for themselves if and how to help those who are struggling. He does not propose any new powers to widen Ofwat’s scope to reopen pricing settlements between reviews, yet while customers pay among the highest bills in Europe, water companies are doing well from their monopoly position.
Last year, regional water companies made £1.9 billion in pre-tax profits, but paid out a staggering £1.8 billion to shareholders. We know they do that and that it is achieved through financial engineering designed to maximise their debt and minimise tax liabilities. That is unacceptable and morally wrong when people are struggling, and I believe people across the country will agree.
Maria Eagle
I will say a little more about what extra powers I think the regulator should have, and perhaps at that point I will deal with some of the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
The Opposition will seek to amend the Government’s legislation and address its central weakness, which is the lack of measures to tackle the contribution that rising water bills are having on household budgets. First, we will seek to grant Ofwat more wide-ranging powers to reopen price reviews between the current five-year periods. In his answer to me last Thursday the Secretary of State said:
“I have written to water companies to call on them to consider the pressure on household incomes when making future bill decisions and, in particular, to consider whether they need to apply the full price increases next year allowed for in the 2009 price review.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1350.]
However, it should not be for water companies simply to “consider” limiting price rises; the regulator needs much greater powers of intervention when those companies are making far more than anticipated at the time of the review.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. The fact is that the previous Government let Ofwat go to sleep. They did not have a proper regulator but we have a robust new regulator in Jonson Cox. Only last week he turned down a proposed price increase by Thames Water, which would have put 8% on bills. That is what a proper regulator does, backed by a proper Government who have a real interest in keeping bills down for our hard-working families.
Ms Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman clearly has great faith in Mr Cox, and we will see in due course whether he is correct in that respect. My point is that Ofwat’s powers—rather than the personality running it at any given time—are limited to acting when revenues are at least 10% higher than expected. That does not adequately address the high dividend payments, particularly relating to gearing, which happen across the industry. Last Thursday, the Secretary of State referred to Ofwat as “a vigorous independent regulator”. I have no doubt that, under its current leadership, it would wish to be so, but it needs to be strengthened to be more effective. The Government’s Bill is a wasted opportunity to strengthen Ofwat.
Oral Answers to Questions
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
7. What plans he has to tackle the effect of rising water bills on the cost of living.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Ofwat estimates that, from 2015, pressure on bills could be reduced by £120 million to £750 million annually. I have written to water companies to call on them to consider the pressure on household incomes when making future bill decisions and, in particular, to consider whether they need to apply the full price increases next year allowed for in the 2009 price review. The Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable consumers and to reduce bad debt.
Nick Smith
That is just not good enough. As families struggle with this Government’s cost of living crisis, can we have a duty on water companies to introduce social tariffs?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I entirely agree with him, I think. We fully appreciate the pressure that many of our hard-working constituents are under to pay their bills, but I am afraid that I have to remind him that in the last five years of his Government, between 2005 and 2010, water bills rose by 20% to £389. As of today, water bills are just under that, at £388.
Karl Turner
Water bills have increased by almost 50% since privatisation, and yet last year, regional water companies made £1.9 billion in profits and paid £1.8 billion to their shareholders. What are the Government doing to ensure that water bills come down for the consumer?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Unfortunately, he did not listen to my preceding answer, which was that under the watch of his Government—because Ofwat did not do its job and because, as with the banks, the last Government did not regulate properly—bills went up. We are fully conscious of the impact of bills on our hard-working constituents. We have a robust regulator in Mr Jonson Cox. It is clear from his statements and negotiations that he expects water companies to hold or reduce prices, while continuing with the enormous investment that privatisation has brought. Do not underestimate the £116 billion that has been brought into the industry, which will make it efficient and keep bills down.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that a large component of the increase in the cost of water bills comes from European directives, such as the waste water directive, the urban waste water directive, the bathing water directive and the drinking water directive? All of us would support those directives, but will he commit to the earliest possible engagement of the Department and Ofwat in limiting the cost of implementing them?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. She is absolutely right that we are bound by European law and regulation in this area of competence. We intend to regulate the industry in conformity with those laws. There is a balance to be struck. As I have mentioned, since privatisation, £116 billion has been brought into the industry. We have improved the quality of our rivers and water enormously, but we have to respect the impact of bills on our hard-working constituents.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
The people of the west country have been suffering the pain caused by their water bills for many years. We are grateful to the Government for the recent help in that regard. Given that the wholesale price of water is not rising, in that it falls from the sky and is free, is my right hon. Friend convinced that the regulator is robust enough to ensure that rises will be kept to a minimum?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is right to focus on the regulator, because the last Government did not have a robust regulator. The whole system depends on having a rigorous and robust person in charge of Ofwat. I am pleased that we have that person in Jonson Cox.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State set out for the House the steps he took to tackle the rising cost of water bills between his meeting with the water companies on 10 July and his follow-up letter four months later on 4 November?
Mr Paterson
The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that it is not for me, in my office, to dictate prices. The industry is a combination of private companies and a vigorous independent regulator. It is important that I do not overstep the mark and that I support the vigorous regulation that he is bringing in. When the new price review comes through, I think the hon. Lady will be pleasantly surprised to see that prices will be held and that some may fall. However, we need to have the balance that I have spoken about because if we are to keep the industry efficient and keep prices down for the long term for our hard-working constituents, we need to keep the investment coming in.
Maria Eagle
In other words, the Secretary of State did absolutely nothing. Does he understand that families who are struggling to pay their water bills want action from the Secretary of State, not a weak letter? With only three companies helping just 25,000 households, it is clear that the voluntary approach has failed. Will he therefore commit to amending the Water Bill, which we will debate on Monday, to require all water companies to be part of a new national affordability scheme and finally ease the cost of living crisis on families?
Mr Paterson
The shadow Secretary of State has to recognise that the schemes that help some water bill payers are paid for by others. She wants to require there to be a universal tax on all water bill payers. I would not endorse that.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
3. When the ban on fishing discards will come into force.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
5. How many cattle have been slaughtered as a result of bovine TB in 2013 to date.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
In the 10 years to 31 December 2012, 305,268 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered as reactors or direct contacts in Great Britain. Since 1 January to the end of August, a further 22,512 otherwise perfectly healthy cattle have been slaughtered solely because of bovine TB.
Glyn Davies
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any political party or animal welfare group that accepts the massive cost in the wholesale slaughter of cattle, silent suffering among wildlife and huge disruption and worry to the farming community, is acting without care or responsibility by not combating this terrible disease?
Mr Paterson
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I wish we could go back to the bipartisan approach of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when we got this disease beaten—we got it down to 0.01%. [Interruption.] The chuntering goes on, but we are following the science from Australia, which is TB-free; we are following the science from New Zealand, which is down from 1,763 infected herds to 66; and we are following the science from the Republic of Ireland, where reactors are down from 40,000 to 18,500, and the average Irish badger is 1 kg heavier because they are healthy. We will end up with healthy badgers and healthy cattle.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Recent figures from Natural England show that only 60% of farms in the west Somerset cull zone and only 43% of farms in the west Gloucestershire cull zone contained cattle. Why are the Government culling badgers on farms without cattle?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Lady must understand that badgers move around. When they are “super-excreters” and they move on to cattle farms, they are sadly very effective transmitters of this disease. That is why we are addressing the disease not just in cattle, but in wildlife.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
13. It was announced this week that a record 220 farms in Wiltshire have been closed down because of bovine TB. One of my farmers has lost his entire herd on three separate occasions. He is reported to be driving a bus at the moment and going through terrible stress. Does the Secretary of State agree that tests in both Somerset and Gloucestershire are showing encouraging results? Will he announce when he intends to roll out the programme for culling badgers across the west country and, in particular, in my constituency of North Wiltshire?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly, the disease continues to increase in his constituency. It is absolutely our intention to continue the policy of bearing down on the disease in wildlife, as well as continuing our severe policy of bearing down on the disease in cattle. We will be announcing further measures in the new year.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The inconvenient truth for the Secretary of State is that there has been a fall in TB in new herds and in TB-infected herds since 2008, before the badger culls began. Now that we know that nearly half the board of Natural England, including its leading scientific officer Professor McDonald, challenge the badger cull extensions, is it not clear that the Secretary of State is a complete stranger to evidence-based policy, but a master of moving the goalposts?
Mr Paterson
Sadly, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The number of cattle slaughtered has gone up by 22,512. These herds are closed up, which means that they are already in a TB area, and the shadow Minister has to understand that. We are following a clear policy that has worked in every other country where there has been a problem of disease in cattle and in wildlife. I have cited Australia, New Zealand, Michigan, with the white-tailed deer, and badgers in the Republic of Ireland. I just wish that those on the Opposition Front Bench would join us, as they did back in the 1970s, in getting this disease under control.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State accept that there would be no sense in pursuing this course further if we did not see progress towards our objective of a significant reduction in TB among cattle in the trial areas?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is right that there is no point in doing this unless we see a reduction in the disease in cattle—that is our intention—but I am happy to report that I was in Somerset last week talking to those conducting the cull, and they were doing so with great professionalism, skill and restraint, in the face of some opposition, and they were delighted with the results, were convinced there had been a significant reduction in the number of diseased badgers and were looking with great confidence to that part of Somerset being rid of the disease.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
6. When the research commissioned by his Department into the provision of food aid in the UK will be published.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Of the 507 schemes receiving DEFRA funding in 2013-14, 143 schemes have secured external contributions. Partnership funding contributions to schemes being built by the Environment Agency are expected to reach £22 million in 2013-14, up from £5.4 million in 2011-12. Contributions of up to £148 million have been identified for the four-year programme to 2014-15, and early indications suggest that up to 25% more schemes will go ahead than if costs were met by DEFRA alone.
Justin Tomlinson
I welcome such schemes in Swindon, but what steps has the Department taken to assist local authorities to use section 106 agreements to secure flood alleviation works for existing communities?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Local authorities are best placed to determine their infrastructure requirements through the local plan process and local flood risk management strategies. DEFRA, with the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association, has provided guidance, including practical examples of flood projects that have secured funding through section 106 agreements.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
DEFRA’s own figures show that climate change could see the number of homes at risk of flooding more than double to more than 800,000 by the mid-2020s, yet the Committee on Climate Change’s report on adaptation makes it clear that even these figures underestimate the risk and that up to 500,000 homes might be left without protection. Why is the Secretary of State ignoring the science?
Mr Paterson
We are not. We are investing, with the various sources mentioned in my previous answers, a range of funds. Over this four-year period, we will spend more than any previous Government and protect 165,000 households—20,000 more than expected. This unprecedented programme is going ahead, despite the mess we inherited from the last Government.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Yes, indeed, the Department secured an extra £120 million from the Treasury last year, taking the amount of flood protection money to more than £2.3 billion, but may I impress on my right hon. Friend the urgent need to stress to the Treasury, in advance of the autumn statement, that for every £1 of taxpayers’ money spent on flood protection there is an £8 return?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and predecessor for her question and congratulate her on all the work she did in preparing for this. She is absolutely right. Shortly after I took over, I saw a scheme in Nottingham where there was an eight-to-one payback on a £45 million scheme protecting about 16,000 houses, but on the other side of the river there were 500 acres, blighted and left alone by the last Government, that are now up for redevelopment.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
9. What plans he has to reduce the number of deaths from air pollution.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
DEFRA’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health. As part of our determination to leave the natural environment in a better state than the one we inherited, I am pleased to announce today the designation of 27 marine conservation zones in the waters off the English coast. The new MCZs will protect nationally important habitat for species and build on the 30,000 sq km of inshore and offshore waters that are already protected. Since 2010, the area of inshore marine sites surrounding them has increased substantially. With the MCZs designated today, just under 25% of English inshore waters are now within protected areas.
Grahame M. Morris
I would like to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to an outbreak of bovine TB in my constituency in County Durham this month. Will he explain how badgers are the cause of the spread of bovine TB in my region?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the fact that this disease is spreading and it allows me to draw attention to the fact that we are bringing in even more rigorous cattle movement controls. We know perfectly well that the disease is spread by cattle. It is also spread by wildlife, and that is why we are going to bear down on both, and we will make an announcement shortly on cattle movement.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T2. In 2011 more than 23 tonnes of illegal elephant ivory was seized across the world. What action are this Government taking internationally to counter this disgusting and barbaric trade?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Two weeks ago I went to Lewa in northern Kenya where the situation is shocking—since I have been there a number of elephants have been killed. Ivory is being sold at $2,000 a kilo and rhinoceros horn is selling at $65,000 a kilo. We offered immediate help to the rangers who are working very bravely there, so that some of our paratroopers could help train them. We are organising a conference at Lancaster house in February to which a whole number of nations from right across the world will be invited, in order to enforce better, to reduce demand and to end up with sustainable alternative activity in these countries.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
T3. A few weeks ago we asked the Secretary of State about plans to take helpful food additives out of flour. What are the results of those plans, and is he thinking of looking at any other foods and taking away things that we know can help people? We do not want people to suffer because they are not getting the things they need.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We look at various regulations the whole time. We are studying that matter and we will make announcements in due course.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
T4. My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that Lincolnshire produces a quarter of the nation’s food and does quite well in recycling waste, but with 15 million tonnes of food across the country going to waste annually, what steps is his Department taking to encourage the uptake of anaerobic digestion?
Common Agriculture Policy
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Today, I am announcing the Government’s decision on the allocation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) budget for the period 2014-20 within the UK. This will set out how the funds allocated to the UK for direct payments to farmers (pillar 1) and rural development (pillar 2) will be divided between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Under the EU budget deal agreed by the European Council in February, the UK has, in principle, been allocated €25.1 billion in nominal terms in direct payments (pillar 1) and €2.6 billion in pillar 2 over the period 2014-20. It will deliver very significant sums of money to UK farmers and other CAP recipients.
Before making a decision on how to divide the funds between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I sought and considered the views of Agriculture Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations. I also sought and considered views from stakeholders across the UK.
As the UK’s pillar 1 funds will be reduced over the next budgetary period, the Government have decided that the most appropriate way of allocating this cut is through an equal proportional reduction to the financial ceilings across the four regions. This means that, over the next CAP programme, subject to final confirmation of the EU budget, the Administrations will receive:
England | €16,421,5 million |
Scotland | €4,096.2 million |
Wales | €2,244.5 million |
Northern Ireland | €2,298.8 million |
Similarly, the Government have decided that the change in our pillar 2 allocation should be distributed equally among the four regions. This means that, over the next CAP programme the Administrations will receive:
England | €1,520.0 million |
Scotland | €477.8 million |
Wales | €355.0 million |
Northern Ireland | €227.4 million |
This announcement gives clarity to each of the Administrations as they plan how to implement the 2014-20 CAP. In England we are currently consulting on the details of implementation.
Bovine TB
Owen Paterson Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
Successfully tackling bovine TB (bTB) in the badger population is a key element in our strategy to rid England of this disease within 25 years. It is this broad strategy, of which badger control is one component, that was endorsed by the House of Commons on 5 June by a majority of 61 votes.
The two badger control pilots, in Somerset and Gloucestershire, were designed to test that controlled shooting is a safe, humane and effective means of reducing badger numbers.
Today I am announcing to the House that the three-week extension period in the Somerset control area concluded as planned on Friday 1 November. During this period, a further 90 badgers have been removed, giving an overall total of 940 for the first year of the four-year cull. This represents a reduction of 65% in the estimated badger population before culling began. This will deliver clear disease benefits as part of a four-year cull in the area.
Before the extension was licensed by Natural England, the advice of the chief veterinary officer was that a further increase in the number of badgers culled after the initial six-week period would improve the disease control benefits achieved even further and enable them to accrue earlier. With the further removal of badgers seen, the extension has been successful in meeting this aim.
While conclusions will need to await the findings of the independent panel of experts, current indications also suggest that the pilot has been safe and humane.
I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who have undertaken the cull, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority who are determined to stop this disease control policy.
The eight-week extension period in Gloucestershire began on 23 October and I will make a further statement when operations there have concluded.
The independent panel of experts will consider the information collected during the pilots on the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. This will be made available to Parliament and the public after the culls have concluded and inform my decision on the wider roll-out of badger control in those parts of England most severely affected by this disease.
Achieving our aim of ridding England of bTB within 25 years will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. This Government are committed to tackling the disease in all reservoirs and by all available means.