Oral Answers to Questions

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps she is taking to meet the recycling targets in the EU circular economy package.

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

There are two separate questions here. The EU circular economy package is still under negotiation, but on recycling rates we are doing well, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We have gone from 12.5% recycling in 2001 to nearly 44% recycling. That is one of the real success stories in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the aim of the package is to have a sustainable, low-carbon, resource-efficient, competitive economy. Does he accept that had it not been for European Union regulation, we would be nowhere in terms of dealing with waste? If it had not been for the stimulation from the EU and the EU package, we in this country would still be throwing all our waste in holes in the ground.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into a much bigger political conversation, but it is true that the European Union has played a constructive role in this. It has shown real leadership on recycling, and there are certainly things we can learn from other European countries—particularly from Denmark and the success it has had on landfill.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I was litter-picking over the Clean for the Queen weekend outside a local primary school, and I was dismayed to find that most items were recyclable. What could the Government do to encourage the next generation to recycle and not to miss the opportunity to forge a circular economy?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope other colleagues are as virtuous as the right hon. Lady. She has set a very high and exacting standard.

[Rory Stewart]

I join you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to the virtue of my right hon. Friend. The answer is, of course, that we need to work on educating people—this is the German model—right the way from school upwards on the importance of protecting resources and of recycling. However, we could also do more to harmonise the system so that it is more straightforward, wherever people live in the country, to know exactly what needs to be recycled and where to put recycling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems that some of these EU quotas cause local authorities such as Adur and Worthing in my constituency? The quotas are based on weight, and if the county council, which is the lead authority, collects more through municipal recycling sites, other local authorities have less to collect, so they cannot meet their targets and are penalised.

[Rory Stewart]

There certainly are issues there, and I am very happy to look at this specific one. However, we should say that most councils still have some way to go, so I pay tribute to South Oxfordshire, for example, which has hit a 67% recycling rate, when the national average is about 44%.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

Could the Government look at the problem of the number of wretched plastic-lined paper takeaway coffee cups, the overwhelming majority of which never get recycled because of the difficulties of ripping out the plastic lining? It is a huge problem.

[Rory Stewart]

I absolutely agree: it is a huge problem—there are tens of millions of these things being produced and thrown away. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, many cannot be recycled because of the way they are disposed of or because of their composition. The Government have tackled plastic bags—I hope everybody in the House would agree that the plastic bag tax has been a success—and coffee cups seem to be a very good thing to look at next.

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

3. What recent progress she has made on the national flood resilience review and updating her Department's flood defence plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

5. How many schools are taking part in the Government’s new tree planting scheme.

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

So far, 800 primary schools have participated in the scheme. The hope is that in the next stage we will give 1 million individual schoolchildren the opportunity to select, plant and care for their own tree.

[Mr Walker]

I congratulate the Minister on this fantastic scheme. I know that schools in Worcester, which are great fans of the forest schools initiative, will want to play their full part. Trees are a fantastic investment in cleaner air, in the quality of life in our cities and in flood defence. Will the Minister come to Worcester and see the tree renaissance that is taking place in our city, where our mayor, Roger Knight, is leading the planting of thousands of new trees?

[Rory Stewart]

I should be delighted to take up that offer. Worcester is showing real leadership, but we would like many more towns and cities in the United Kingdom to engage in planting more trees. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is fantastic for tackling air pollution, fantastic for biodiversity and great for our leisure and health. In particular, I pay tribute to the work in Worcester at Laugherne Brook and Perdiswell.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

In addition to the development of new woodland, the maintenance of existing woodland is equally important. What steps have the Government taken to promote and maintain our existing woodlands?

[Rory Stewart]

We have a series of schemes on this. The countryside stewardship scheme gives grants to improve woodland. We also have new projects worth millions of pounds working on under-managed woodland to make sure it is managed better, and we have a £1 million scheme to help people to plan and develop new woodland across the north of England in particular.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

6. What steps she is taking to reduce food waste.

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

The work on food waste has a number of components. It starts at the farm gate, by making sure that food is not wasted there; it continues to the supermarket shelves, by making sure that products last longer on those shelves; and it ends up in households, by making sure that people understand how to buy sensible portions and that they do not throw away food unnecessarily. The Courtauld 2025 agreement, led by the Waste and Resources Action Programme, has the target of reducing food waste by a further 20% between now and 2025.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister will know that the Scottish Government have pledged to cut food waste by a third and save £500 million by 2025. Scotland is the first part of Europe to set such a food waste reduction target. Will the Minister follow that example and pledge a UK Government target to save money and cut food waste?

[Rory Stewart]

I pay tribute to Scotland for the work it is doing, but I politely point out that recycling rates in Scotland are, unfortunately, lower than they are in England or Wales. However, we very much endorse the desire of the Government of Scotland to improve that recycling rate, particularly in relation to food waste.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Where food waste occurs, it is important to treat it as a resource and put it to good use rather than send it to landfill. One of the best uses for it is in anaerobic digesters to produce electricity. As household food waste is collected by local authorities, what discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage councils to raise the proportion of the food waste that they collect and send to anaerobic digestion?

[Rory Stewart]

There are two elements to that. The first is working with councils in Britain to make sure that they all move towards separate food waste collections. That is absolutely central. The second is making sure that we minimise that food waste, but that when it occurs, it is used either for composting or for the generation of energy. That also involves a long-term plan for infrastructure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and other right hon. and hon. Members a very happy St Patrick’s day? They say that if the sun shines on St Patrick’s day, it will be a very good summer. Only time will tell whether that will be the case.

I welcome the news that Tesco has said that all its unsold food will be given to charities, and that will undoubtedly have a huge impact on the reduction of food waste. What discussions has the Minister had with other large food chains to ensure that they do similar work?

[Rory Stewart]

I join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating St Patrick’s day.

Tesco is taking a serious lead on this, but many other retailers have also taken a lead, particularly Morrisons and the Co-op on the procurement of food and making it last. All the major retailers have now signed up to the Courtauld 2025 agreement. Currently, the waste coming from those retailers’ shelves is only about 0.2 million tonnes a year, which is lower than in other sectors. However, those supermarkets can contribute much more to everything down the chain, both at the farm gate and in the household, and we will continue to work with them closely on that.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

If the Minister wants any further advice on anaerobic digester plants, he should go to see David Easom, a farmer based in the villages of Wessington and Brackenfield in the Bolsover constituency. Several years ago, I mentioned the fact that he was going to have an anaerobic digester in this House. It is now up and running. Everybody is going to visit him, and Ministers from the Department should go to see how it works. Everything is in running order, just like everything else in Bolsover.

[Mr Speaker]

We very much hope that the plant is in Derbyshire, rather than in this House.

[Rory Stewart]

I feel that that is a great compliment. It is a historic opportunity for me to spend time with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), whom I have long admired. I very much look forward to visiting the plant with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure we will get a report in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

8. How many flood defence schemes are planned to (a) begin and (b) complete construction in 2016.

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

Some 246 schemes were begun in 2016-17, and 190 are due for completion.

[Rebecca Pow]

Will the Minister kindly update the House on progress with the legislation that is required to set up the Somerset rivers authority as a separate precepting body, so that we can fund flood protection for the future? Local authority budgets are currently covered by a special caveat, but legislation is required to set up the precept for 2017-18.

[Rory Stewart]

As my hon. Friend is aware, DEFRA committed £1.7 million to the Somerset rivers authority. That authority has now decided that its preferred solution is a precept, and a shadow precept will come into effect from April this year. We look forward to discussing the long-term financial arrangements directly with the authority.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York welcomes the investment in our flood defences, but the Foss barrier will be underfunded by this Government for the improvement that it needs, and the capacity of the pumps will be 40 tonnes per second, not the 50 tonnes per second that is needed. Will the Minister commit to considering that issue, to ensure that we have sufficient funds to improve the barrier?

[Rory Stewart]

We have significant funds for the barrier, and we are committed to considering that issue. I am happy to go and look at the Foss barrier with the hon. Lady. The calculation on the pumps is an engineering calculation, and we would be happy to look at the flood maps with the hon. Lady. We will provide the correct funds for the correct solution for the Foss barrier.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

13. A small but important role in flood defence is played by farmers who clear ditches and drainage channels. What progress is being made to remove the bureaucracy that sometimes stops them from doing that?

[Rory Stewart]

Two weeks ago, we took through the House new legislation that will significantly simplify what happens. We will focus the efforts of the Environment Agency on the highest-risk cases, we have reduced red tape by 50%, and we are allowing farmers in non-specialist environmental zones to clear 1,500 metres of drainage ditch without having to get a bespoke permit.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the money allocated for flood defences in yesterday’s Budget stay with the Treasury or be transferred directly to the Department? How much of it will be allocated for maintenance of flood defences?

[Rory Stewart]

We are currently discussing the details of that, but the Treasury was clear that at least £40 million in the first year will go into maintenance, and £200 million of the initial allocation will go to capital spending on flood defences.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

16. The Lincolnshire wolds are beautiful but suffer from flooding. How many homes will be protected in the market towns of Horncastle and Louth as a result of the flood alleviation schemes that are funded in part by this Government, Lincolnshire County Council, and East Lindsey Council?

[Rory Stewart]

Some 13,989 properties are due to be protected, including more than 300 in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve monitoring of levels of air pollution.

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

The Department continues to improve its monitoring of levels of air pollution in line with the EU ambient air quality directive, and the computer programme to calculate emissions from road transport, or Copert. We have increased the number of nitrogen dioxide monitoring stations by more than 30% over the past three years.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Air pollution will cost many more thousands of lives if air quality is not improved significantly. How will the Government achieve legally binding targets for air pollution if the third runway at Heathrow is permitted?

[Rory Stewart]

The current objective is to focus on nitrogen dioxide thresholds and ensure that we reduce ambient air quality rates below 40 micrograms per cubic metre. Heathrow is a totally separate question that must be assessed independently by the Environment Agency and our air quality monitors, to see whether ambient air quality targets are met.

[Naz Shah]

Air pollution kills 50,000 people a year, yet the Government are concerned with only five cities. Will the Minister explain why?

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very good question. In those five cities, the ambient air quality level of 40 micrograms per cubic metre is due to be exceeded. Therefore, our objective is to ensure that by 2020, in Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton, we drop that level below 40 micrograms per cubic metre.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

14. In Deptford, air pollution levels are more than double the European legal limit. London as a whole breached annual air pollution limits just days into 2016. Does the Minister think his Department is doing enough?

[Rory Stewart]

We have reduced nitrogen dioxide dramatically in Britain—by 44%—but there are still significant problems in London. That is partly to do with the population and design of London, which is why an ultra-low emission zone is being introduced in London to ensure that we exclude the vehicles that are responsible for the majority of that air pollution.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

In Morpeth in my constituency, we have a Rolls-Royce flood defence system, but we also have a problem with insurance companies still quoting exceedingly high premiums. They blame the Environment Agency for not updating the data. What can the Minister do to resolve this unacceptable situation?

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

There are two issues here which we will be meeting shortly to discuss. First, the introduction of Flood Re will ensure affordable flood insurance underwritten by a national scheme, meaning that lower-rate taxpayers’ premiums and excesses will be £250. Secondly, on businesses, we had a meeting yesterday with the British Insurance Brokers Association, which has now prepared a new package, with more specialised and precise mapping, to ensure that affordable flood insurance is available not just to households but to businesses.

The right hon. Member for Meriden, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

March Environment Council

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Written Statements

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

I attended the EU Environment Council in Brussels on 4 March along with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Climate Change, Lord Bourne. The Scottish Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Dr Aileen McLeod MSP, also attended Council. I would like to update the House on the matters discussed.

Follow-up to COP 21 (climate change)

The Council welcomed the presidency’s summary of the implications of the Paris agreement with a number of member states criticising the Commission’s communication for lacking sufficient positive messages to maintain the momentum of Paris. The UK, supported by other member states, emphasised the importance of 2020 as a moment for raising global ambition. A number of other member states expressed their support for the EU increasing its ambition in light of Paris. However, some member states noted this was not the time to discuss raising the EU’s mitigation ambition. In response the Commission confirmed their view that the EU needed to focus now on the implementation of existing commitments.

Endocrine disrupters

The Council gave unanimous support for the presidency’s draft statement on the General Court’s ruling on the Commission’s failure to adopt delegated acts setting out the criteria for endocrine disruptors.

Circular economy

The Council debated the EU action plan for the circular economy. The UK highlighted work that had been done domestically, expressed support for elements of the action plan such as industrial symbiosis, and expressed overarching concerns for the proposed waste targets, stressing the need to pay close attention to the costs and benefits. Most member states wanted reassurance that a joined up approach was being taken by the Commission. The presidency stated that they will aim for Council conclusions on the action plan to be agreed at June Environment Council.

European semester/annual growth survey 2016

The presidency introduced the discussion of the contribution of the environment to jobs and growth. The UK emphasised that the semester and EU 2020 should continue to be focused on jobs and growth.

Any other business: international wildlife trafficking

The Commission introduced the recently released EU action plan on wildlife trafficking. This was welcomed by several member states. The UK highlighted the valuable nature of member states working on issues such as an import/export ban on raw ivory. The UK encouraged other member states to follow the UK’s move to an importation ban on lion trophies in 2017 if a sustainable approach could not be found.

Any other business: real driving emissions

France provided a paper calling for greater political transparency regarding the third and fourth real driving emission packages and for using the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of conformity factors in the future. The UK welcomed the agreement of the second real driving emissions package as a major step forward in tackling air quality issues in member states. In support of the Commission’s approach, the UK and other member states warned against changes to the current process for determining the test procedure and requirements through the technical committee, which would risk delaying agreement of the remaining legislative packages and implementation of this important regulation.

Any other business: further points

The Council noted the information from Austria of the desire to hold a discussion on energy transition.

The Council noted the information from Belgium for further action and speeding up of the implementation of the 7th environmental action plan. The Commission announced the first review date would be in 2018.

The Council noted the information provided by the Commission on the ratification of the Minamata convention (mercury regulation).

The Commission introduced a paper on innovation deals and noted recent initiatives such as the international green deal on the North sea resources roundabout which was formally agreed the day before Council by the Netherlands, France, the UK and Flanders.

Lunchtime discussion

Over lunch, Ministers discussed the ratification of the Paris agreement where the UK confirmed that ratification would only be possible following completion of the negotiations on effort sharing.

[HCWS622]

Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the committee has considered the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016.

The regulations are designed to simplify the permitting process and make more straightforward the way in which we deal with works in rivers. Previously, the process was governed by complicated legislation from the 1970s and 1990s that ensured that a bespoke permit requiring a detailed application and assessment was needed for anything that happened in relation to a river, whether that concerned bridges, culverts, outflow pipes or work on banks.

The new system is an attempt to move to a more straightforward procedure whereby in the highest-risk cases—around half of cases—a bespoke permit is still required, but for others there is a simplified process. For some excluded categories, there will be no need for anything at all. Simple, straightforward works, such as putting a ladder or piece of scaffolding in the river temporarily, will not require any form of permit.

The second type of procedure is an exempt procedure, for which all that is necessary is for someone to register the works.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I am interested in the ideas that my hon. Friend the Minister is putting forward. Will the regulations make it easier or more difficult to get a permit if, for example, there was local management of a river and we wanted to do a little dredging here and there?

[Rory Stewart]

Provided that the dredging work being undertaken was in the category for a registered exemption, all someone would have to do for works under 1.5 km is register that they were doing them and ensure that they had fulfilled the conditions of the exemption. They would then be able to proceed with the work. In the past, they would have had to make a bespoke application with a lot of detailed plans and drawings that would be considered on a case-by-case basis. We believe, though, that in low-risk cases of agricultural dredging that are not in areas of special scientific interest, it should be possible for people to fulfil a simple registration, follow the conditions and proceed. An example would be regular winter dredging.

There are essentially four different categories. The first, which I touched on briefly, is the excluded category, for which no permit at all is needed. For the second—the exempt category—people simply register online.

The third category is the standard rule permit, which requires people to seek permission—it is not just registration—and they have to follow standard conditions. For example, if someone is running an electric cable across the river, the conditions relate to putting it 1 metre or 1.5 metres under the river bed, starting around 8 metres from the edge of the river. There is, though, still a requirement for the agency—in this case the Environment Agency—to check the plans and drawings to ensure that the person has complied.

The final category is where the bespoke permits remain in place, but they are reduced to around half of cases.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

If one of my neighbours has a house adjoining the river, they potentially have a vested interest in any works that are done. What rights would they have to know about works being carried out and to object to the detail of how those works were done, in order to protect their own land and property?

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. We have to differentiate three different questions: first, the nature of that person’s interest in that river; secondly, the nature of the work being undertaken; and, thirdly, the existing procedures to go through some form of objection.

I will take the categories in turn. To take the most simple case in the exempt category, for someone putting a ladder in the river that is removed at the end of the day, the answer to the neighbour is that that is an exempt activity, and the neighbour would have no opportunity to object.

For the second category, let us imagine that someone is running a more complicated utility across a river, such as an electric cable. If it was covered under one of the exempt categories, a registration would be submitted and there would be a possibility to examine that registration. If the activity registered did not comply with the standard conditions, such as if that cable had not been put 1 metre under the river bed or placed 8 metres from the edge of the river bank, there would be the possibility for the Environment Agency to intervene.

For the third category, which is more complicated work—not a simple wooden footbridge, but the insertion of a larger single-span bridge, perhaps with concrete piles—it would be necessary to go through a procedure and to understand the rules under which such plans would need to be submitted, and the Environment Agency would review.

Finally, if it was a very complex piece of work that would require a bespoke permit, a full case-by-case examination would have to take place.

We are simplifying the paperwork, and the benefit of that is that we move away from a complicated application for flood defence consent in which people were forced to fill in detailed plans and drawings, even for quite trivial works in the river. There were two problems with the complicated application. First, in certain cases, people were wasting a lot of time and energy, spending half an hour filling in the form and hours preparing their plans. The second probably more serious problem was that, in many cases for trivial works, people probably simply circumvented the law and did not fill in the documents in the first place, which was not to be encouraged.

We are moving to a situation where we will be much clearer that simple trivial works are exempt. If, on the other hand, people need to proceed, we have a much simpler form. People tick what they are doing, such as “repair of the floodbank”, and fill the form in. It takes about five minutes. For those simple types of work that will not have a significant impact either on the flow of the river or on floodwater moving around the side of the river, there should be no serious impact.

The second thing we are doing is that we are rationalising some of the legal anomalies in the environmental permitting regulations. For the 5% of cases where it was necessary in the past to apply for two separate permits—people had to fill two separate application forms and receive two different permits: one environmental permit and one flood permit—we are putting regulations in place that will allow people to have a single process with a single permit and a single application form. By doing so, we will ensure that the Environment Agency is focused on the most risky, most serious activity and that it does not waste its time looking at trivial things. It will therefore have a better quality of attention, which will be better for our environment and our flood risk. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

We have heard two serious interventions on different issues. The hon. Member for Stockton North focused on the issues of dredging, risk, resources and who is best placed to deal with these issues, while the hon. Member for Bassetlaw focused on banks and charging. I will take them in reverse order.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw recognises the significant changes that will happen in terms of work on banks. That is a way of addressing some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North. The principle is one of looking at what “minor works” on banks mean—less than 10 metres, for example, would require only a registered exemption, while less than 20 metres would be under a standard rules permit. That is a big change from the old system, where a bespoke permit was needed for any work at all done on a bank.

I can reassure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that the regulations are not introducing charges. There is, of course, a legal possibility for charges to be looked at, but they would be looked at under a separate instrument following a detailed consultation. I reassure him that we are not debating the question of charges today.

That brings me to the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Stockton North. I will run through the various issues he raised. A lot of people have talked about dredging. Although we have exclusions and exemptions in relation to that, they have to follow very clear standard conditions. If those standard conditions are not met, that dredging is not legitimate. That relates to the question raised by the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. We cannot dredge if, for example, we are dredging into an area with a site of special scientific interest, or a Ramsar site. This applies only to dealing with agricultural drainage ditches that are considered within the main river system. It would tend to apply, generally speaking, to low-lying areas. We are not talking about massive flood alleviation schemes. Our engineers believe that the requirement of limiting work to 1.5 km will deal with any serious issues around flooding.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Will the Minister comment on the proposals for the short areas that farmers, for example, might dredge? If they had been allowed to do that previously and to apply for these permits—I have talked to lots of farmers in Somerset about this issue—might it have helped to reduce the awful flooding that we saw in 2014-15?

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very good question. I think the answer to my hon. Friend is that in an extreme weather event, such as the sort she saw in Somerset, the regular removal of silt from a 1.5 km-ditch is unlikely to have a significant impact on downstream flooding. What it would do in normal cases of winter flooding, is reduce the flooding of agricultural fields which would be good. So it is good for the general operation of farm business in normal winter flooding situations, but in an extreme weather event I am afraid that 1.5 km of silt removal is unlikely to tip the difference.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

I welcome these proposals. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I also have many low-lying agricultural areas in my constituency that have suffered from flooding. Many of my farmers have asked for simplification about dredging and I wondered how the Department will communicate this simplification to landowners, so that they know about it and can save time in what they are doing.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question. The answer is that we began the communication process through a highly publicised speech given by the Secretary of State at the Oxford farming conference, which got a lot of coverage in the agricultural press. There is increasing awareness now among the farming community of this future exclusion, but clearly we can do more. We will do our best to work with my hon. Friend, with the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and particularly with the trade press, to make sure that farmers are now aware of the new procedures. In my experience, farmers generally cotton on very quickly to these kinds of legislative changes, but I am happy to take up the challenge if they want.

I will move forward to address the questions put by the hon. Member for Stockton North. Regarding the question of the calculation of risk and who calculates it, essentially that process has been led by water engineers within the Environment Agency. Some of the exclusions and exemptions are genuinely very low risk indeed. If we look through the list of the exclusions, it was necessary in the past to obtain a bespoke permit, in theory even if someone was just putting a floodgate over their house. Ambiguities within the legal drafting meant that anything that could possibly affect the flow of water, such as someone not letting water into their front door, could have required a bespoke permit.

In the past, putting a sign into a river required an entire bespoke permit. Now, there is absolutely no engineering evidence whatsoever that sticking a small pole into a river will have a significant impact on flooding downstream. However, to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I will point out that the process is very much driven by a cautionary principle—people are being very risk-averse. We have made sure that we have excluded only the very lowest risk activities. Again, registered exemptions are very carefully controlled. In fact, we have had some complaints from people who would like to see us go much further.

The reason we have had to be quite careful is that the measure has to apply to all rivers across the country; it is not possible for us to come up with a single set of rules without being very cautious. For example, there is a standard exemption for scaffolding to extend across 10% of a river. People come back to us and say, “Well, that doesn’t make much sense. If my river is only eight miles wide, you are allowing me to put only 0.8 meters of scaffolding into the river.” The reason for that is that we have to make sure we are very, very cautious, which is why nearly half of these cases will still require bespoke permits. We have to deal with the fact that every river is different, every condition is different and the hydrology of these different river systems is very testing. However, in straightforward cases—a noticeboard or a ladder going into a river, or a simple piece of work on banks, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—we have taken the view that a calculated risk makes sense.

Finally, on the question of who is best placed to make such decisions, whether on IDBs or the action of local councils, the draft regulations apply primarily to main rivers, which is to say the rivers and streams that we believe have a significant impact on a large degree of flooding. Most of the local authority responsibility will relate to flood risk in general and include a lot of rivers that are not classified under the regulations as a “main river”.

In terms of the resources to be brought to bear, we believe that rather than imposing more costs on individuals, the Environment Agency should be saved about half a million pounds a year—a significant saving—and businesses about £14 million over 10 years. Those financial savings are only the beginning, from my point of view; the real saving is getting rid of the forms. Nothing is more eroding to trust in Government in the general sense of energy and common sense in action than having to fill out forms to put a ladder or a simple signpost into a river.

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. None of us doubts the wise measures in place as far as the smaller things are concerned, but I am concerned about monitoring some of the more extensive work that will not require the same level of permit as in the past.

[Rory Stewart]

In order to deal with the serious stuff, which is to do with major works on bridges, culverts, banks, utility crossings and outflows—water coming in—a full, bespoke Environment Agency permitting system is in place and covers nearly 50% of the applications. Officers in such cases will require full plans, drawings and impact assessments, will have to inspect the individual rivers and will look in detail at the proposed works case by case.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sorry—I think I just invited the Minister to repeat what he said earlier—but I am talking about what will not require a permit under the regulations. He started to talk about the more extensive work, but he has addressed that; I am asking about the marginal stuff, where there will be changes. For example, 1.5 km of river is a fairly extensive piece of river, so I am interested in what monitoring of that will be like in future, so that we know the new regulations are working.

[Rory Stewart]

Dredging and the 1.5 km are perhaps a misleading example. That is about maintenance of silt levels in existing agricultural drainage ditches in areas that are not of environmental importance. The rest of the things that are excluded are, genuinely, very minor works indeed. We are literally getting down to the level of a ladder or a sign board being put daily into the river; a service crossing with an existing structure, or, in other words, someone putting an electric wire through a pipe that already exists in a bridge; a 48-hour temporary trial pit; an investigation borehole; or clearance of sediment traps. For anything above that, such as exposed gravel removal, a large outfall or headwall, or a large habitat structure, the full regulatory system remains in place. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon for his opening statement.

We are proud to be part of the discussion on the circular economy package. The circular economy is something that matters greatly to the United Kingdom Government and it is good to see the European Union taking it forward. The package is important because we are trying to deal with a world in which our resources are being depleted all the time and the global population is rising steeply. We need to think about a circular economy—an idea that has been around since the early 1970s—in terms of how we manage those resources. We need to think about sustainability and whether we want to have a low-carbon economy. We may want to think particularly about price volatility. Do we want a circular or zero-waste economy, to use the hon. Gentleman’s words, perhaps because we are worried about scarcity of commodities and future prices and want to hedge against them?

For all those reasons, we must consider three basic categories: production, consumption and waste. Beginning with production, we have to think about eco-design—ensuring that products are better designed to be durable, so that they do not need to be thrown away so quickly, repairable in a way that most of our mobile telephones are not, and easily dismantled. If, for example, we are trying to extract precious metals from a BlackBerry, an iPhone or a flat-screen television, is it easy to get into them?

The second category is consumption. What can we do as the European Union and as individual Governments to improve consumer behaviour? It is partly about education and partly about ensuring that people actually care about recycling and the environment, but it is also about having single standards—ensuring that a guarantee on a television, for example, is worth the paper on which it is written and that claims made for the environmental origin of products are valid. If it is claimed that a table is made from sustainable timber, it should actually be made from sustainable timber, and people should be able to explain what on earth “sustainable timber” means.

The third category is what we actually do with our waste in the end. That relates to recycling, incineration, landfill and how we implement policies to make those things easier. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on some of the controversial aspects in the package. One is the question of “pay as you throw”. In Flanders in Belgium and in Germany, for example, people pay for the privilege of throwing away their waste. They can do so in a couple of ways: the waste can be weighed, or people can simply buy a bin bag for a couple of euros. That disincentivises people from putting too much into landfill. One question that we are debating today is whether the European Commission should ordain that member states implement a “pay as you throw” system, or whether it can be left to member states to determine whether it is acceptable to their council rate payers and voters and, if it is, how to achieve the targets.

The final situations with which the regulations deal are quite specific. They relate to amendments to slightly grisly European Union directives such as the landfill and the packaging directives, to how we deal with plastics and biomass and to how we recycle wood. They particularly relate to precious and rare metals and how we might extract them from the system, and to the important matter of how we deal with issues such as incinerator bottom ash, compost and how we recycle such secondary stuff. That is a series of good, challenging issues, and it is great that the Commission has put in a lot of work and thought.

I pay tribute to the Commission, to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment, which did a lot of the work that underlies the measures. It is a good model for us in the British Government to consider, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is a reasonable series of discussions about how much of this action needs to be ordained and micromanaged from a European level and how much of it could be left to national Governments to resolve for themselves.

[The Chair]

We now have until 5.33, an hour after the start of the Minister’s statement, for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to the Chair’s discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to have listened to the hon. Member for Aberavon and the Minister introduce the debate. I have two simple questions. The first involves the recycling industry in the UK. Many local authorities, such as mine in Hampshire and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, are looking for more certainty about the future of recycling. Bearing in mind the problems local authorities have with getting contracts to recycle Tetra and other materials, what work are the Government doing to provide more certainty for the recycling industry, so that more products can be recycled?

[Rory Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. The first key element is that to create a real recycling economy, we need certainty, vision and clear targets. If Hampshire County Council or, for example, South Gloucestershire Council wants to make the requisite investments in recycling facilities or trucks, it would be really helpful if we moved from the more than 300 different systems we currently have throughout the country towards a more harmonised system. If a critical mass of councils were collecting Tetra and separating their waste into its component parts, it would be much easier for the environmental industry to make bigger long-term investments.

Secondly, we need to ensure that Hampshire County Council works more closely with some of its neighbours. There are some fantastic examples in South Gloucestershire, South Oxfordshire and Surrey. I would like to see the development of clusters—perhaps a London cluster, perhaps one around Hampshire—that can think about what best practice is and how to get the economies of scale. That does not necessarily mean one company collecting all the waste across many counties, but it almost certainly does mean developing simple systems in which, in a highly mobile population with people moving from one local authority area to another, people at least know what to do, rather than having to re-learn the rules of the bespoke system in every area.

[Mrs Miller]

My second question is on energy recovery. In Hampshire, only 7% of waste is disposed of in landfill because there is extensive use of energy recovery. The by-product of energy recovery is incinerator bottom ash, which is currently not counted towards recycling targets in England, whereas it is in Wales and other parts of the EU. The proposals before us do not recommend a change to whether bottom ash is counted, although they do recommend a change for metal-related bottom ash. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we have an opportunity to include bottom ash in our recycling targets, so that we are more likely to get the increased recycling rates that we need and, indeed, that I know the Minister wants?

[Rory Stewart]

There are two issues: a past one and a future one. Incinerator bottom ash was not included in recycling targets in the past because it is not, in the narrow sense of the word, recycling. Glass, for example, is taken and turned back into glass; with incinerator bottom ash, a product is destroyed and something else—generally a cinder block—is generated, and that is normally seen as recovery rather than recycling. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, Wales, in a domestic context—it is not allowed to do this in an EU context— does count incinerator bottom ash as recycling, as does Germany.

There would be a good circular economy argument for why we might want to include incinerator bottom ash in recycling targets. If it is being reused, that is certainly a product going back into use. So to take up my right hon. Friend’s challenge, the Government undertake to look closely at the idea. Over the past few weeks we have asked officials to begin to examine it more closely, along with the potential for extracting precious metals from incinerator bottom ash. There is potential for fantastic trade between Britain and Holland, which might result in many hundreds of tonnes of precious metal being extracted. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that could make a significant contribution to our recycling targets.

Finally, I pay tribute to Hampshire council, because 7% of waste going to landfill is a fantastic figure to have achieved. The EU has set a target of getting under 10% by 2030, so Hampshire’s achieving 7% is worthy of admiration throughout the country.

[The Chair]

No more Members wish to ask a question, so we will proceed to the main debate.



Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 14972/15 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Closing the loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, No. 14973/15 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment, No. 14974/15 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, No. 14975/15 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, and No. 14976/15 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; and supports the Government’s continuing efforts to amend these proposals in order to secure measures increasing resource efficiency and reducing waste whilst avoiding costs to business, householders and Local Authorities which are disproportionate to environmental and economic benefits.—(Rory Stewart.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. Of the numerous issues he raised, I think there were three central ones. The first is resources for local authorities to ensure that they can achieve their objectives, which is an important point. The second is businesses and in particular how we ensure that we get things right for them. The third is what we can do to ensure that we engage with other countries through the European Union’s framework.

The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the resources challenge. As he pointed out, councils such as Stockton have managed to extract a profit from recycling. In ideal circumstances, things can be done. Huge savings can be made from reducing the amount councils send to landfill because they will not have to pay landfill tax and, if they get separation right, it is possible to generate income from the different components being recycled. However, that is not always easy, particularly in remote rural areas and sometimes in certain urban contexts: some people living in apartments are reluctant to separate waste because they simply do not have the room to do it.

The answer is to work more closely on harmonisation. Our initial work in London has led us to believe that if we could have a harmonised recycling system in London, local councils could save between £19 million and £20 million a year. In the case of London, increasing recycling rates would not just be good for the economy but save councils money.

Furthermore, if we are sufficiently imaginative and reach out to the industry by getting the economies of scale, we should be able to drop the charges imposed by companies, who should be able to use a standard fleet to collect waste. At the moment, any number of different trucks are driving around and there are any number of different bins. Some trucks are able to collect only commingled waste while others attempt to separate, but there are problems with crushing plastic as opposed to preserving glass. If we can sort that out through a more harmonised system, that should deliver savings and not impose costs on individual councils.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister has already talked about the challenges in different parts of the country. London is a close, tight-knit part of the world, which makes things easier, but there is a real issue in rural areas. What will happen to targets for rural as opposed to city local authorities? Will they be different?

[Rory Stewart]

Our objective is to deliver the EU target of 50% by 2020 and then to move on to the targets for 2030. To provide a real challenge to rural areas and to show that it can be done, Wales is showing an extraordinary improvement. The Welsh approach to recycling has very quickly driven recycling rates from the mid-40s per cent. up to the mid-50s per cent., and that is despite working in some of the most challenging geography in Britain. My gut instinct, therefore, is that if Wales can pull it off, we can do better in other rural areas in Britain.

The second issue raised by the hon. Gentleman was to do with businesses and how much they pay. We have to get the balance right there, too. In Germany, for example, the equivalent of Tesco pays to collect the packaging of its own products, which can cost a great deal of money. Some estimates of what businesses collecting their own packaging are spending total billions of euros a year. In Britain, instead, we have adopted a producer responsibility, or PR, system of tradeable credits in recycling in which the collecting is done by the local authority, but the businesses pay for the credits. At the moment, we believe that to be a more cost-efficient and economical system. We continue to focus on that model, although it might need to be tweaked to deal with some of the volatility of prices.

The third question was about what we can do to reach out to other countries. That is a two-way street. Sometimes, it is a matter of us learning from other countries. As the hon. Member for Aberavon knows, Denmark leads us by a long way on this. On Friday, the Danish Environment Minister told me at the Environment Council that the Danes had got their landfilling down to 1.3%. I can hardly believe that to be true, but if it is, we have an enormous amount to learn from Denmark—that is an impressive figure. I was just congratulating Hampshire on 7%, but 1.3% is really going some. As the hon. Member for Stockton North pointed out, however, other member states—often those that have joined the European Union relatively recently—have landfill rates up at the 70% or 80% mark. Clearly, things can be done to share best practice with those states.

To conclude, the areas that we probably want to focus on include food waste—an issue on which the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the shadow Secretary of State, has led a great deal. It is becoming more and more urgent for the public. People care more about food waste, and the days, 10 years ago, when people complained about slop buckets are going: people feel a moral obligation to deal with food waste, and councils that offer separate food waste collection are popular. We need to get better at that.

As far as the second thing that we need to focus on is concerned, we can take some satisfaction in where we have got to: Britain has taken household recycling rates from 11% to 45% since 2000. Getting to the point where we are recycling almost half our waste is relatively impressive. It is striking how attitudes are changing through all generations; people seem to be more comfortable and at ease with recycling.

Finally, we need to be practical. On Thursday, I was talking to the Dutch Government about something called the North sea resource roundabout, which is a new, voluntary initiative of the sort that we should be pursuing more—it is not the EU regulating, but a voluntary approach.

We have fantastic agreements going with Holland on moving bottom ash from Britain to Holland, where there is a much more sophisticated recycling process to extract metals, and on moving compost from Holland. The Dutch have a lot of manure coming out of their animals, but do not have much use for it, so we are moving it to Northumberland, where we can process it into fertiliser. Finally, we are also working with Flanders on the issue of chemicals in plastics.

In every case, concrete issues of shipping routes, costs, definition of waste—how waste is defined affects whether we are allowed to transport it across international bodies—and the way in which waste is counted are involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke pointed out, how waste is counted affects whether people are incentivised to collect bottom ash.

If we can get such things right, we will see a revolutionary change moving towards what we want: a natural capital approach, making sure that things that are not counted, that the market does not recognise, are properly captured—the value in not only the primary products, but the secondary products coming out of the bottom of incineration. We will then protect our environment for the future and create an economy that is sustainable, low carbon, efficient and impervious to shocks from the global volatility of commodity prices. Such an economy will achieve what we want, which is a more prosperous and a more environmentally friendly future.

Question put and agreed to.

EU Environment Council

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Written Statements

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

I will attend the EU Environment Council in Brussels on 4 March, along with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Climate Change, Lord Bourne,

The Scottish Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Dr Aileen McLeod MSP, will also be attending Council.

Following adoption of the agenda, the list of “A” items will be approved.

Under non-legislative activities, the Council will debate the EU action plan for the circular economy and the follow-up to COP21 (climate change). There will be an exchange of views on the European semester/annual growth survey 2016 and the contribution of the environment and climate to growth and jobs. The Council will adopt a draft statement on endocrine disruptors.

Over lunch Ministers will be invited to discuss the ratification of the Paris agreement (climate change).

The following items are due to be discussed under any other business:

Energy transition—promoting environmentally friendly forms of energy in the EU.

Implementing the 7th environmental action plan.

Minamata package (i) proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mercury, and repealing regulation (EC) No 1102/2008; (ii) proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Minamata convention on mercury.

Real driving emissions (RDE).

EU action plan on wildlife trafficking.

Innovation deals.

[HCWS575]

Correction

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Written Statements

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

During oral questions to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday, 4 February (Hansard, col. 1061) I said in answer to a question from my hon. Friend, the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann);

Legal proceedings were brought and the decision was made by Truro Crown court, under the hon. Judge Carr, to instead impose an enforcement order.

I should of course have referred to an enforcement undertaking rather than an order and I wish to correct the record by means of this written statement.

[HCWS569]

National Wildlife Crime Unit

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Written Statements

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

The national wildlife crime unit is a specialist unit dedicated to tackling wildlife crime, playing an important role in wildlife law enforcement both at home and internationally. It provides intelligence and direct assistance to individual police forces and other UK law enforcement agencies, including providing specialist support that allows warranted officers to investigate wildlife crime. The unit also acts as the UK policing focal point for EUROPOL and INTERPOL activity on all wildlife crime related matters, and works in partnership with non-governmental agencies across the UK committed to tackling wildlife crime.

Following the spending review 2015, DEFRA and Home Office Ministers have been considering the level of Government funding for the national wildlife crime unit beyond March 2016.

In recognition of the important contribution the unit makes to tackling wildlife crime, both at home and abroad, I can confirm that DEFRA and Home Office Ministers have agreed that their respective Departments will each provide the unit with funding of £136,000 a year for the next four financial years. This will give the unit significant financial stability and enable its vital work to continue until at least 2020. Those contributions will be in addition to the funding central Government provides to police forces in England and Wales to tackle all types of crime—including wildlife crime.

In addition, DEFRA will provide the unit with up to £29,000 a year over the next four years for specific work to tackle wildlife crime conducted online, as a developing area of global criminal activity.

Government funding for the national wildlife crime unit jointly provided by DEFRA and the Home Office up to March 2020, including additional support from DEFRA to tackle online wildlife crime, will total £1.204 million.

[HCWS561]

Waste Recycling: South Gloucestershire

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for bringing this important subject forward for debate. I do not say that facetiously; the question of waste recycling in South Gloucestershire has its equivalents across the country. It is not simply a South Gloucestershire issue.

I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood on the forthcoming birth of his child. It is very good news that in a month’s time a baby is coming. It is good that my hon. Friend is already thinking about the nappies. He focused on the reduction in the size of the landfill bin to 140 litres; the decision to move from a separate waste collection to a single collection in a box in which the different types of waste—plastic, paper, metal and glass—are separated by dividers; and the question of whether elderly people will be able to move the recycling boxes.

Those are good points to raise, particularly as we are coming to the great moment of “Clean for the Queen”. It is a great ambition to create, for the Queen’s 90th birthday, that green and pleasant land of which Blake spoke. In Britain, we should take particular pride in that, because Britain has been famous for a long time for its neatness. Tourists who come here have long respected this country for being a tidy place. The steps that South Gloucestershire is taking show that continued commitment.

The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate are particularly important because this country has more than 300 recycling systems. It is a little bit absurd. As we go from council to council, we see that some collect waste commingled, some—about 40—separate food waste, and about another 260 do not. There are different sizes and colours of bin, different types of truck, different types of recycling system and different types of anaerobic digester consuming waste. That all adds cost.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Rubbish!

[Rory Stewart]

It is indeed. In London alone, we could probably save £19 million a year if we had a single standard recycling system. Across the country as a whole, the savings would be extraordinary. We spend more than £3 billion a year simply collecting waste. If we had a single, harmonised system across the country, we could drive up recycling rates, massively reduce the cost for ratepayers and achieve extraordinary things for the environment and for councils themselves. South Gloucestershire Council is therefore a good example on which to focus.

That South Gloucestershire example is also a good illustration of some of the problems involved in realising such a dream. The council has taken some fantastic steps. It has separated the waste, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has pointed out, means we can get out the value. If we commingle the waste—putting the glass, paper and card together in the same box—it can be a real problem, even with modern methods, to extract the glass as it goes through the system. We should be able to get much more value out of the paper or the glass, which can go back to the council and the rate payer, if we keep the waste separate. The council has a good system for doing that in South Gloucestershire—a single box, with dividers to make separation easier.

The challenge, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is making sure that the system is comprehensible to the public and something to which the public can respond and relate. I therefore encourage South Gloucestershire Council to take on board the points made by my two hon. Friends, along with our congratulations on the direction in which they are going and on the national leadership it is showing.

It seems sensible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, to look at the needs of the vulnerable and of large families. I believe that South Gloucestershire Council already takes into account the fact that if a family has six members, it may need a larger bin. The council may wish to show additional flexibility for exactly the kind of people mentioned by my hon. Friend.

I do not wish to talk simply about the negative aspects—both my hon. Friends made very good points—but to look at the positives. If South Gloucestershire Council gets this right, we will have a national model. Why do we need a national model? We need one because South Gloucestershire Council is recycling only about 47% of its waste at the moment, which is not quite good enough. Wales, which has a pretty challenging geography, is currently recycling about 53% of its waste. If Wales can do it, there is no reason why England cannot do it as well. There are no profound cultural differences there.

We are committed to getting to a recycling target of 50% across the country by 2020. We will get there by following the lead of places such as South Gloucestershire. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to work with the council to reach out to surrounding councils in Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and the south-west and try to encourage harmonisation. That can be done. Manchester has now got 10 councils together to come up with a single recycling system. It is investing hundreds of millions of pounds over the next 25 years to make that work.

South Gloucestershire Council could be showing exactly that lead for the country—and, my goodness, we need it. The reason we need it is that we live in a world in which such resources are under pressure. We have talked about separating food waste. We are currently consuming 70% of the world’s water just on producing the food eaten by the current population. The average household in Britain wastes £65 a month by throwing away food that does not need to be thrown away. We are consuming and depleting resources—oil, precious minerals—that could be recycled and used again. We are creating a lot of unnecessary carbon by creating materials that could be recycled. We put into landfill 50% of the stuff that does not need to go into landfill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood pointed out.

If we can get this right, Britain can be a national example, our great environmental industries can take off, we can export some of these skills and we can show the world that we are an environmental leader. We can also make British jobs and generate energy out of it, we can have a much better circular economy and it will be good for our production. Thanks to the fantastic contributions from my hon. Friends, the South Gloucestershire example could be a very important part of such a solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Recreational Sea Bass Fishing

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Moon]

I appreciate the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—I should never have done it, but my constituents wanted to know, so I wanted to know, and thus I am here today. I am also a Member who has a coastal resort, in which sea bass fishing was a very popular activity, so I started looking at the facts.

Everywhere I looked, it was very clear that there was an urgent need to rebuild bass stocks—and nobody seems to dispute that. It is the core bottom line. It is an environmental and economic imperative, and everybody will agree on that. We know this because in 2014, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality across the EU area for 2015, following a rise in bass landings from 772 tonnes to 1,004 tonnes. We were taking more out of the sea than was sustainable. The bass stock in the North Atlantic fishery is 527 tonnes—well below the trigger point of concern for the exploration of the seas, which was set at 8,000 tonnes. Future regenerations of sea bass stocks are now in danger.

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

This is just a small point, but I think the hon. Lady meant to say 5,250 tonnes.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the Minister for the correction; he is absolutely right.

In December 2015, the EU Fisheries and Agricultural Council met to formulate a package of measures and regulations, but the agreement that was reached was both unfair, ineffective and, quite honestly, unbelievable. The regulation of recreational and commercial bass fishing, which came out of that December meeting, has exposed a rotten relationship between the industry and Government, both in the UK and across the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As someone who is not the fisheries Minister and whose constituency is stuck on the top of a mountain, I feel I am being drawn from my native rivers and well out from the pelagic realms into very deep water. My main responsibility has been to listen very carefully to this highly intelligent and serious debate. I will communicate all the arguments that have been made to the fisheries Minister and I will make sure that DEFRA takes them into account, responds to them in detail and takes action.

In the seven minutes I have left, it will not be possible for me to do full justice to all the speeches and interventions. May I say, however, that it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate? One of the most striking things about it, as one can see in the Chamber, is the great strength, good humour and, indeed, good looks of anglers. I have been very struck by the sense of generally energetic, tanned men, such as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is looking cheerful and bouncy. I have a general sense that this sport brings out a stress-free, cheerful life, and that it is to be praised. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) also contributed to the debate in an intervention.

As someone who is new to the debate about sea bass, it is striking that it is bringing to the surface the very serious tension between EU fisheries policy and UK policy, and between the interests of anglers and the interests of commercial fishermen. Navigating our way through that is quite tough. Very strong statements were made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who particularly stressed her family connection with commercial fishing, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who took us all the way back to medieval abbots, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), whose speech was perhaps more suitable for mobilising a brigade for war than for a technical discussion of maximum sustainable yields.

The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) made us think about the role of aquaculture in relation to sea bass. One reason why sea bass is a very striking fish is that it is, or so it seems to an outsider, the next salmon—the next great challenge we face in the debate in the United Kingdom. It is clearly an unusual fish, as people found when they developed aquaculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It struggles to get out of the microscopic eggs, it produces juveniles that have difficulty in tracking down their prey, and it has to create its air sack by rising to the surface and filling it with an oxygen bubble. In fact, the species suffered what was essentially an extinction event in the Mediterranean. We are now talking about the north-east Atlantic, but the Mediterranean sea bass was in effect eliminated during the 1960s and 1970s. Most of its presence there now appears to be related to farmed sea bass that have escaped.

That is why the challenge that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made to us to focus hard on the science is so important. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) focused on biomass, particularly breeding or spawning biomass, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) focused on landings. The shadow Secretary of State pointed to the issues around tonnage and black fish, particularly the landing of 1,100 tonnes in 2014.

This is a serious subject and the science is at the core of the debate. It does not matter whether we are talking to commercial fishermen or the angling community: the question is: what is the state of sea bass? Of course, sea bass has been on an extraordinary rollercoaster since the early 1980s. We went from minimal tonnage to a single spike year in the 1980s in which we hit nearly 13 million tonnes of biomass. Very warm conditions seem to have created an enormous number of sea bass. Along with changes in our eating patterns, that created the phenomenon, which did not really exist before the 1980s, of commercial fleets going into the Atlantic after sea bass to feed these new tastes. A series of cold winters from 2009 onwards appear to have led to a serious problem in new juvenile production, when combined with the large levels of catching, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out.

The best analysis that we can currently reach on the subject comes from ICES. We believe that we are catching about 5,000 tonnes and that that is about 30% of an 18,000 tonne biomass. However, if we look at breeding biomass, the figures appear to be lower. I see the hon. Member for Ogmore is looking at a piece of paper. Does he want me to give way briefly?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for a very detailed answer, which is focused on the science. The ICES evidence points to the necessity of an 80% cutback in the year ahead and a 90% cutback after that. Those cuts are massive and stringent. Will the Minister respond to the suggestion that we will actually be looking at about 20%? Is that accurate?

[Rory Stewart]

I notice that since the emergency of Daesh, people have really struggled to pronounce ICES. It is causing more and more of a problem. Foreign affairs and defence appear to be entering into fishing debates.

To answer the hon. Gentleman, the 80% reduction is a reduction from a current maximum sustainable yield, which we believe to be about 13%—that is the best science—from the current catch rates and landings, which seem to be striking at about 30%. The question clearly is whether the measures taken in December Council will achieve those targets. I will come on to that now.

The key thing is that most of us in this Chamber agree that we need a solution—in fact, everybody in the Chamber probably agrees that we need a solution—that achieves a healthy bass stock. Again, I am very much not speaking as an expert, as this is outside my field. The measures that were taken at the Council were, broadly speaking, steps in the right direction. I think hon. Members would agree with that. The most important actions that were taken—this relates to the question from the hon. Member for Ogmore about the 80% reduction—were those that related to the pelagic fleet. In particular, the measures on drift netting—not on fixed gillnets, but on drift netting in general—were important, especially in relation to pair trawlers.

One debate in this House is about what kind of impact those measures will have. Will they reduce by 70% or even more the amount that is caught, as one would hope, or does more need to be done? I think that we would also embrace the move from 36 cm to 42 cm. The reason for that, which I do not need to point out to the House, is that we will get more spawning stock because the animals will get to a greater age.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in 2005, the UK fisheries Minister wanted to impose that increase just on UK fishermen? Now, it will at least be imposed on anybody who goes out from any member state to fish for bass.

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very good point, but it is important to remember that one reason why the EU dimension matters is that these fish are very widely distributed. I have talked about the Mediterranean variety, but they exist all the way from the Mediterranean right up to the north Atlantic. About 70% of the catches—it is hard to put a figure on this, but certainly the majority of the catches—in the north Atlantic come from French boats. It is extremely important, therefore, to the UK fisheries that an agreement is reached at the European level if we are to create a sustainable biomass and a maximum sustainable yield on catching.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), in a characteristically energetic, cheerful and engaged speech, attacked the specific conclusions that were reached in relation to fixed gillnets and, in particular, the 1.3 tonne limit and the two-month closure.

Let me move to a conclusion. There seems to be a consensus in the House that there is more to do and that we must consider our next steps, several of which have emerged from the debate. First, we must all agree that the huge achievement in the Council—I am sorry that more people have not pointed this out—was to get all member states to agree on the figure for the maximum sustainable yield. That is absolutely vital. By getting them to agree on a 13% take, we have a target for 2017-18 that we can use to leverage in exactly the kind of arguments made by my hon. Friend about the tonnage catch for individual boats. We must have those conversations throughout the summer and the rest of the year, and keep relentlessly focused on that target.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Angus made a powerful point about ensuring that, through the regional advisory council network, we have people in a room who are seriously focused on an agreed target of meeting that maximum sustainable yield—as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall pointed out, that also extends to commercial fishing. The 25-year environment plan that DEFRA is introducing will provide us with an opportunity to lead a pathfinder that will focus on a marine area. Hopefully that will allow us to explore the kind of ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall focused on in relation to striped bass and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham focused on in relation to Ireland, namely the potential social and economic benefit that can come from developing a sustainable bass angling industry.

This has been an impressive debate given the level of science, detail and constituency commitments involved. In defence of the deals that are being struck, we have achieved an enormous amount in addressing the biggest problem, which was the pelagic large drift and pair trawlers, and that is a big achievement. We have also achieved an enormous amount in getting agreement at European Council on the maximum sustainable yield, and that target will be vital. We have done that in a way that has attempted to respect the interests of commercial fishermen, and also to engage anglers. If we can achieve that target by 2017-18—and it will be tough—a lot of these issues can be revisited. If we do not achieve the right path towards that target in the coming year, we will have to revisit the catch for commercial fishermen. I call on the patience and understanding of the House as we address an issue that is important not just to this country, and that is the preservation of a unique iconic species: the branzino, the spigola, the lavráki, or for us, the bass.

Flood Insurance for Businesses

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) for a very quiet but very forensic speech that showed the deep care that he has for his constituency. I saw that directly myself when I walked through many of the businesses that he described. I saw how, in essence, a tidal wave had moved through a furniture factory, wiping out half a million pounds-worth of stock. I saw how a furniture warehouse was ruined and a community centre had been wiped out. I saw, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have noted, the incredible impact that this has had on a very precious and beautiful area of our country and a historic community, and how intimately the subject of business insurance is connected to the livelihood and the longevity of these communities.

I will not get into a detailed discussion about the DEFRA survey, although I would point out that it is not quite as bad as it seems on paper. A total of 2,686 businesses were surveyed, but I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the 25 on whom an in-depth survey was conducted was not a large enough number to be a decent sample. I strongly encourage the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and his APPG to get involved in the detailed investigation of what is happening in business insurance in Calder Valley. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) raised that issue powerfully.

There are improvements that we can already make without looking at a flood re scheme. First, we need to make information far more accurate so that businesses in a flood-vulnerable zone are not being punished when they are not actually flooded. Secondly, as has been pointed out, we need to make sure that businesses are more resilient. We have access to good public information about that. There is a very good example of a business in Cockermouth that took the right measures and, as a result, was able to come back from the flooding in two days whereas previously it took four months.

In relation to business, the Government have a part to play in investment and infrastructure. We need to guarantee broadband connections; there was a problem in that regard at Tadcaster bridge. Electricity substations and roads must be left open, because that matters not just for communities but for businesses. We need to acknowledge that the insurance industry cannot be the complete answer. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) pointed out, it is important that there is an element of grant coming in. We have put a great deal of grant behind businesses—an average of £2,500 per business, but in some cases considerably more—because we acknowledge that the insurance industry does not produce all the answers. There is also the capital expenditure that we need to put into flood schemes in general.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley focused, as did the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), specifically on whether there should be a Flood Re scheme. I am afraid that time will not allow me to answer this question in detail, but I will give some points to consider in looking at business insurance. First, setting up one of these schemes involves a very considerable cost to the dry. At the moment, within a Flood Re scheme, regardless of where someone is located—they could be on the edge of a river and flood every three years—they would be guaranteed that for a £250 premium, or the basic rate of council tax on a £250 excess, they would be insured. This would mean that businesses in dry areas would have to cover the cost of providing insurance in some of the cases that my hon. Friend raised. For example, if a business has indeed, as he said, flooded twice in four years at a cost of £500,000 to its stock each time, it will be difficult to provide insurance without some measure of cross-subsidy for businesses that are not in flood-affected areas.

The second problem is the complexity of flood insurance for businesses. It is much more straightforward for householders, who basically look to insure their buildings and contents. A business, on the other hand, has to look at how much cash it has in the bank, and how much it therefore wants to lower its premiums and self-insure against a higher excess. It has to look at whether it has high fixed structural assets and whether it wants to insure them. An internet company will not want to invest much in insuring the building that it is in, whereas for a farm, a property business or a restaurant, that fixed structural asset is absolutely essential to the continuity of its business.

The difference can be huge when it comes to business interruption insurance. For example, business interruption would be minimal for a company such as cheapflights.com, provided that its service was not located in the area affected. However, if the McVities biscuit factory in Carlisle were wiped out by a flood, the business interruption consequences would be catastrophic. That is why it is much more difficult to model business insurance than household insurance.

There is also, of course, the issue of moral hazard. We do not want to encourage businesses to locate themselves in flood-vulnerable zones if they have a high fixed structural asset cost. We want to keep those communities vibrant and alive, but we also want to do so in a way that makes sense.

Nevertheless, something must be done. The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) has emphasised the importance of business insurance for retaining the communities for the sake of their history and the social costs involved. We therefore need to answer some questions. First, how much subsidy—because there will have to be an element of subsidy—do we wish to put into an individual valley? Secondly, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has asked, what should the balance be between the Government element of the subsidy and that provided by the insurance industry for businesses in non-flood-affected areas?

Thirdly, should we consider a different insurance model? One possibility—we have not done this in flood insurance before—is to consider the approach taken by travel and medical insurance, which have a fixed indemnity. If the Government are to be involved, it might be reassuring for them to know that a property had a fixed indemnity of £20,000 or £50,000 attached to it, rather than what we have at the moment, which is an unlimited flood insurance liability.

That is why I am delighted to say that tomorrow I will host a round table with BIBA, ABI, the Federation of Small Businesses and a dozen other stakeholders, to talk through the concrete, detailed issues involved in providing serious insurance for businesses.

[John Mc Nally]

I have sent the Minister a letter inviting him to the next meeting of the all-party group on flood prevention, but he has not replied. It would be an opportune time for him to meet us after his other meeting.

[Rory Stewart]

I would be delighted to do that. I have 45 seconds left. I pay tribute to a wonderful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley. It was a serious forensic analysis that tore the DEFRA report to pieces, for which I am grateful and I will follow up on it. I also thank the other Members who have contributed to the debate, and I pay tribute to the extraordinary community in Calder Valley, including the community activists in Hebden Bridge, individual businesses and, indeed, the military on the streets for the work they did. Finally, I give a commitment to my hon. Friend and to the House that we will, through the round table and over the weeks ahead, look in full, relentlessly and vigorously, at the costs, both economic and social, involved in failing to provide adequate business insurance.

Question put and agreed to.