Oral Answers to Questions

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

2. What assessment she has made of progress on flood plans for Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement.

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

There are two forms of flood plan that affect Gloucester. The Gloucestershire county council plan was agreed in 2014, and the national plans from the Environment Agency will be in place for the Severn and the Thames by next month.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister will know how vulnerable Gloucester is to flooding. I am delighted to assume from his answer that the Environment Agency will have plenty of funds with which to establish a robust flood protection scheme, but does he see a role for other partners, such as Severn Trent Water? If so, will he tell us how that might work?

[Rory Stewart]

There are three elements in my hon. Friend’s question. First, I entirely agree that Gloucester is particularly vulnerable, because of its combination of fluvial and tidal flooding. Secondly, there is money in place for Gloucester: £5 million, with a six-year guarantee from the Treasury. Thirdly, I met the chief executive of Severn Trent two days ago. We are always interested in the role that other partners can play in ensuring that we have effective flood protection at a reasonable cost.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

3. What progress her Department has made on meeting the UN target of halving food waste by 2030.

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

Britain is a leader in addressing the problem of food waste. We have managed to reduce household waste by 15% and retail waste by 7.2%, and the figures for 2014 suggest a further 3.2% reduction, but that will be dealt with mainly through the Courtauld 2025 agreement.

[Holly Lynch]

We know from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s documentary “Hugh’s War on Waste”, which was shown earlier this week, that supermarket practices such as unnecessarily strict cosmetic specifications for products are contributing to the huge amounts of waste in the supply chain. What is the Minister doing to ensure that supermarkets take much more responsibility for reducing food waste in their supply chains?

[Rory Stewart]

The supermarkets and retailers in general are a very important part of the Courtauld agreement. I pay tribute to some of the retailers: Tesco has made progress on bananas, and there has been progress from the Co-op on potatoes with the Marfona range, which reduces potato waste by 30%, but I absolutely agree retailers have to play a larger role in reducing food waste in general.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that consumers have a role to play, too? What is wrong with an over-bent banana? What is wrong with a particularly twisted turnip? They can still taste just as good. We have got to educate the consumer. What will the Minister do about doing just that?

[Rory Stewart]

The records of Ministers and shadow Ministers walking around with strange-shaped fruit is not always very positive. However, in order to encourage this I would be delighted to be seen eating a wobbly banana.

[Mr Speaker]

Notably in the company of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give the House some details of what discussions he has had with supermarkets in relation to food waste, and will he welcome the announcement by KFC who have done a deal with the Salvation Army to help hand out food so it is not wasted?

[Rory Stewart]

There have been a number of discussions. I absolutely welcome that move and pay tribute to that work with the Salvation Army. We should also pay tribute to Tesco, which now has a new app running with FareShare, and Morrisons, which has announced it will be putting all the food within the sell-by date over to charitable purposes. This is a really good lead and it is showing that a voluntary approach is working.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

4. How many trees the Government plan to plant during this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to reduce inequality between rural and urban areas.

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

We are focusing on rural productivity, and we have 10 main priorities: mobile broadband, transport, communications, investment in education and skills, investment in apprenticeships, houses, affordable childcare, making sure that we have in place everything that we need for businesses, rural enterprise zones and the localism to underpin all of that to deliver rural productivity.

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I am pleased that he mentioned rural broadband. In the village of Saughall, in my constituency, residents are being told to pay an extra £7 a month in premium to access fast broadband because they live in a rural area. Ofcom is acquiescing in that, but I remind the Minister that there are large amounts of public and European money to develop those networks. Will he please make representations to Ofcom to stop this discrimination, which is increasing the inequality?

[Rory Stewart]

I would be very interested to meet the hon. Gentleman and to hear more about this matter. That does seem an unjust situation. I would be interested to know the identity of the provider and why they are charging in that way. It certainly seems an important issue for rural areas in general, so I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

16 . I am also delighted to hear that the Minister is conscious of this issue. Some of the houses in about a third of the villages in my constituency do not have access to superfast broadband. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that broadband generally is as fast and as effective in rural areas as it is in urban ones?

[Rory Stewart]

I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for the meeting that she held in South East Cambridgeshire last week, with more than 20 parish councils, British Telecom and Broadband Delivery UK. It is a really good example of how local MPs—and this is true across the House—can lead this kind of progress. There are new technological solutions that we are putting in place. We are very proud that, by the end of this year, the universal service commitment of 2 megabits will be available, but that will not be enough for the future, which is why I would also like to draw her attention to the Fell End build and benefit model where the Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, BT and local communities are finding out how to deliver fibre to the most remote rural communities.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

7. What estimate her Department has made of the number of households affected by lack of food security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

11. How many flood schemes are due to begin construction in 2015 under the Government’s six-year flood defence programme.

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

The Government planned to launch 161 schemes in this financial year, providing extra protection for 70,000 households. As this is the Environment Agency’s flood awareness week, let me take the opportunity to remind everybody living in risk areas for flooding that there is a very important personal responsibility to remain in touch with the Environment Agency, particularly through the winter months.

[Mark Menzies]

I thank the Minister for the work that the Department is doing with the flood protection schemes in Fairhaven in my constituency. Fylde also suffers from inland flooding, so will the Department consider schemes to alleviate the flooding impacting on high-quality farmland in Fylde?

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am glad that he recognises the work that has already been done along the Fylde coast, which is one of the top six projects for the Environment Agency. Nearly £80 million has been spent on protection along the Fylde coast. On farmland, the Dock Bridge pumping station and the work that my hon. Friend has done with farmers in situ are extremely important and I look forward to meeting him and the Environment Agency.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Insurance companies are suddenly ignoring the £23 million flood defence system in Morpeth in my constituency, telling residents that it is “irrelevant”. Christine Telford, who has lived in the same property for 21 years, has just been quoted between £3,000 and £4,800, with an excess of £7,500. What will the Minister do to put pressure on insurance companies to give affordable and realistic insurance premiums?

[Rory Stewart]

This is a very important point. With the Government spending a record amount of money on flood defence—about £20 million in this case—it is important to have a standard that flood insurance companies recognise so that when we make the investment householders can benefit from it. I am happy to consider the individual case.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

17 . I was pleased to welcome the Government’s investment in repair work for the Barbourne brook culvert in my constituency last year, but investigations have since found significant deterioration in that culvert and there might be a need for some extra support. Will the Minister convene a meeting with the Environment Agency and Worcester City Council to discuss the issue?

[Rory Stewart]

Again, I shall be delighted to do so. Worcester is a special case, as it is on the Severn, like Gloucester. Much of the flooding there has affected assets, such as road assets. That culvert is central and I am happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and with the Environment Agency in order to address the challenges of that culvert.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

T4. To aid reduction in our carbon footprint, from 2018 it will be unlawful to grant new property leases with an energy performance certificate rating below E. What progress are the Government making on ensuring that as many of these properties meet that rating before civil penalties are introduced, and what encouragement are they offering to landlords to ensure that they bring their properties up to the highest possible EPC rating, rather than just making the necessary improvements to take them up to the minimum standard?

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

I am afraid that I do not have a great deal of detail on that issue now, so I will be happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and discuss it further. Climate adaptation is baked through our departmental policy. It sounds to me as though this is something we need to discuss with the hon. Gentleman, communities, local government and, in particular, the housing taskforce.

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

T3. “Water adds value.” That was the conclusion of the Canal & River Trust when it studied the economic, social and environmental benefits of waterways restoration projects over the past 20 years. Will the Minister join me in praising the hard-working volunteers of the Louth Navigation Trust, who for the past 30 years have been working hard to restore the Louth canal to its full glory?

[Rory Stewart]

I pay real tribute to the work of the Louth Navigation Trust. We are at an exciting moment with the Louth canal, with the potential removal of the Phillips 66 pipe. If we are able to deal with some of the land ownership issues and, in particular, work with my hon. Friend to talk with Merton College, Oxford, which appears to control access to the canal, then we can get what she and the Louth Navigation Trust have fought so hard for. I thank her for her interest.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

T6. Among my constituents there are real concerns that the recently approved Enderby Wharf cruise liner terminal in east Greenwich will have a detrimental impact on already dangerously high levels of air pollution. Can the Minister outline how the forthcoming air quality strategy will protect my constituents from the noxious emissions that berthed cruise ships will generate at the site?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The dastardly EU has moved the goalposts on bathing water quality, and this morning we have found out that Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency has fallen short of the new standards. This will be of great concern to many in my constituency, particularly those involved in tourism. Will the Minister reassure us that all will be done to improve standards before next year’s readings?

[Rory Stewart]

This is an extremely important issue. I underscore the fact that these are advisory notices; they do not prohibit people from swimming in the water. In relation to Burnham-on-Sea, 250 missed connections have been identified by Wessex Water, which will invest £36 million. I have every hope that through its Streamclean initiative we should be able to bring Burnham-on-Sea back into compliance.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the vital work being carried out by the National Wildlife Crime Unit. With its current funding ending in March 2016, will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure it, and the public, that the Department, alongside the Home Office, will ensure that funding is maintained beyond 2016?

Environment Council

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Written Statements

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

I attended the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 26 October.

After adopting the agenda, Ministers set out preliminary positions on the reform of the EU emissions trading system for the period 2021-30 signalling the range of issues to be resolved. The UK set out its preference for a “tiered” approach to using free allocation of allowances to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage in energy intensive industries. This was supported by France, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Ministers debated the phasing out of environmentally harmful subsidies and the implementation of environmental policies and legislation. Most member states recognised the importance of addressing environmentally harmful subsidies. The UK highlighted the importance of tackling fossil fuel subsidies and pointed to the recent reforms of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy as important steps. All member states recognised that better implementation of existing legislation was vital to reducing costs and improving environmental outcomes. The UK stressed that the European semester needs to remain focused on jobs and growth. The presidency will summarise the discussion into a report for the next General Affairs Council with a view to preparing the European Council in March 2016.

The Council exchanged views on putting into practice the recently adopted United Nations 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Member states generally agreed that implementation would require existing EU policies to be harnessed and adapted to align with the 2030 goals, rather than new policies or structures. The UK called for the EU to focus on those areas where it can add the most value.

Under the AOB items, the presidency and commission summarised progress made at recent key climate change meetings. The Netherlands presented the Make it Work initiative for better regulation, led jointly with the UK and Germany. This initiative aims to improve the quality of legislation across the environmental acquis.

Under a final AOB item, member states discussed developments concerning the car sector and real driving emissions. Ministers emphasised the need to act quickly and effectively to resolve the issue of manipulation of emission testing, because of the effect on air pollution and the need to restore public confidence. The Commission stated its determination to play an active part in resolving the problem.

Over lunch, Ministers for both environment and development exchanged views on common challenges and integrated approaches towards the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

[HCWS284]

EU Environment Council

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Written Statements

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

I will attend the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on 26 October.

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

During the legislative deliberations, there will be a policy debate on the proposal for a directive reforming the EU emissions trading system.

There will be a non-legislative discussion on greening the European semester, with regard to environmentally harmful subsidies and the implementation of environmental legislation. There will also be a discussion following the September UN special summit on sustainable development, which adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Over lunch Ministers will be invited to discuss the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The following Any Other Business items will be discussed:

1. Recent informal meetings preparing for the Paris climate change summit.

2. The ‘Make it Work’ initiative for better regulation on European environmental policy.

3. Real driving emissions and manipulation of emission control systems in cars, and links to air quality in the EU.

[HCWS270]

Local Flooding

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify, I think there is a question of correlation and causation in relation to the statement that my hon. Friend has made. This is a very serious issue, and it is of course true that the floodgate was closed just after midnight on 12 February and that the waters then receded, but I am afraid that we do not have evidence that there is a direct causative relationship between those two things.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am happy for the Minister, with his usual acuity, to point that out. In many ways, the actual details are neither here nor there. Let me put it in the conditional mood, because the Minister might then be able to understand what I am driving at. If it were the case that that was the cause, who would ultimately bear the responsibility? That is the broader question. We can have debates about causation until we are blue in the face. If we want to be philosophical about it, it is difficult to prove any form of causation, but that is not the question here. The point is that people’s homes were affected by an accident that they believe, rightly or wrongly, had something material to do with the maintenance of a key piece of infrastructure.

If it were the case that the sluice gate had not been maintained properly, whose job was it to tell the water company or to enforce a decent degree of maintenance by it? I fully understand that the water company, being a private company, will not put up its hand and say that it was responsible, to the tune of millions of pounds, for all the damage. I understand how corporate life works. What I am interested in finding out—and I still have not had an answer—is who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that that piece of infrastructure was properly maintained. As I have said many times to my constituents, it is not my job as an MP to ascertain the facts: we have other processes for doing that. What I am interested in is the issue of responsibility and accountability that such circumstances raise.

In summary, facts can be disputed. As we have seen in this brief debate, causation can be disputed. But what my constituents and I want to know is that if people have not done their job, in terms of maintaining crucial infrastructure, who takes responsibility? Is it the county council? Does it have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a sluice gate or any such infrastructure is maintained properly? Is it the water company on whose shoulders responsibility should rest? Is it the Environment Agency? We have seen occasions on which the agency has taken relevant bodies to court. Who should ultimately bear the responsibility? That is my question, and it is important. To my constituents, other hon. Members and me, the question of responsibility remains murky and obscure. We simply do not know who to turn to or where the buck stops. We do not know who is responsible, in the last instance, for ensuring that key bits of infrastructure or equipment are maintained. That is a legitimate question to ask.

It was in that spirit of inquiry that I applied for this debate. The issue is a simple one and we must remember one basic fact: the aqueduct was on private property. The contention is that a piece of infrastructure on that private property was not adequately maintained to do its job. The simple question that follows on from that fact is who is ultimately responsible for that maintenance.

I am happy to have expressed my views and those of my constituents in this debate. I thank the Minister for his forbearance and I look forward to his response.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for raising this incredibly important subject. He is right that two separate issues arise—one of causation and one of the allocation of responsibility. Before we get on to what he described as “philosophical” issues, I wish to place on record our firm understanding of how serious the issue of flooding is and how devastating it can be for communities. I myself have directly experienced flooding in Cumbria. It is extraordinary that in a country that, compared with others, often seems peaceful and lucky in many ways, flooding is one of those extreme acts of God that impose devastation and loss on families such as cannot be imagined. We take the issue immensely seriously.

The tragedy of what happened in 2013-14 in my hon. Friend’s constituency took place in the context of the worst winter for 250 years. During the previously worst floods, in 1953, 307 people died. This time, thank goodness, we were able to forecast the floods more accurately and respond more quickly.

[Dr Mathias]

The Minister is talking about the history of flooding, which is also of concern to my constituents. The river is like a living being. Over 200 years, man has changed the landscape, most pertinently for Greater London and Spelthorne. There is no overall responsibility for concreted areas and the fact that the river is not allowed to behave as it naturally would. I live in a one-in-20 risk area.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a good case and is tempting me towards a different issue. Essentially, rivers have five core functions. They have a function for wildlife—the animals and plants that live in them. Their second function relates to drinking water, while their third is to irrigate farmland and perhaps support large energy-intensive industries. Fourthly, they have a sewerage function, and fifthly they have a leisure function. Those are the river’s positive functions.

However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the river can also function as a destroyer—something that can devastate communities. As my hon. Friend mentioned, in our highly densely populated island rivers are not natural products; particularly as we get closer to London, we see centuries of improvement and control. Nobody in DEFRA or the Environment Agency would suggest for a moment that rivers are purely natural. In fact, the Department and the Environment Agency are about to invest up to £300 million of public money in improvements to the Thames to deal with these issues. At their core is a highly artificial feature—a new canal system to divert the water away.

Before I deal with the general point, let me try to address most directly the question of responsibility raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. There is clearly a major issue. I am very keen to add the Government’s condolences in respect of Zane Gbangbola’s tragic death. That real tragedy is an example of why it is so important to get these things right.

The simple answer is that Thames Water is wholly responsible for the management of the sluice. The broader context is that the Environment Agency is responsible for taking a strategic overview. We have a particular responsibility, through the Environment Agency, for main rivers. The Thames is a main river and part of the Ash is a main river, although the bit around the sluice gates is not. Surrey County Council is responsible for local flood risk management. The district council can carry out flood risk management works, but Thames Water is wholly responsible for that asset.

I move on to the positive, after which I shall come back to the question of responsibility that my hon. Friend posed later. There is some good news. We have come out of the 2013-14 floods very aware of what happened. There has been a very good section 19 report, which my hon. Friend has certainly read. Surrey County Council was the top beneficiary of the repair and renewal grant. Some 548 properties in Surrey received £2.6 million, which is more than 10% of the total repair and renewal grants for the whole country, reflecting the scale of the suffering in Surrey.

We have a major flood protocol in place that stretches all the way from Maidenhead to Teddington.

[Dr Mathias]

I want to put it on record that that is highly contentious. People are very concerned about that flood risk management plan.

[Rory Stewart]

I invite my hon. Friend to explain what worries her about the flood risk management plan.

[Dr Mathias]

By all means. We are talking about extra cuts, the upper reach of the Thames and the change in the river flow. My constituency is most vulnerable. There are inadequate reservoirs in the area and other engineers say that the Environment Agency is not on top of its job.

[Rory Stewart]

I had the privilege of visiting the area around Teddington with the Environment Agency two weeks ago. The agency has extremely complex and serious models—geomorphological models—on water movement. We believe that we have one of the best understandings of flood movement and flood forecasting of any country in the world. The River Thames scheme is a £300 million scheme—a staggering sum of money. The Government are contributing £220 million directly to the area stretching down the Thames to Teddington. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise scientific or engineering issues, I am happy for her to do so offline—I am not sure that this is the appropriate debate—but we will provide better flood protection to approximately 15,000 homes and businesses in that area.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) raises interesting issues but, in this debate, I want to stay closely to the issues I have raised. I suspect we may have to have another debate to discuss Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs geomorphological studies.

[Rory Stewart]

I will take my hon. Friend’s invitation and put aside the additional measures that have been put in place. We will have other opportunities to talk about the Flood Re insurance scheme, of which we should be very proud, as he knows. We will have other opportunities to talk about sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS—which will make a huge difference, and other opportunities to talk about local flood risk management.

Surrey County Council has a good flood risk management strategy. It has published a new draft strategy, which my hon. Friend will have read, as I have, clarifying exactly the issues that interest him, which is the question of who is responsible for managing the risk. We have community flood plans within Spelthorne. Three are in place—Fordbridge Park, Wheatsheaf Lane and Sunbury Court Island—two are in progress and three more are coming. There will be a severe weather forum on 5 November, which he can attend. It is intended that communities will come forward with their plans and preparations.

My hon. Friend has an important point: it is the case that, in that flood, it does not seem that we can assign total responsibility to that sluice gate. It is not a main river section. Our modelling suggests that the sluice gate is not what led to the flooding in those houses. However, as he has pointed out, regardless of that case, there is an important hypothetical case. What happens if, in future, that sluice gate is genuinely essential to prevent flooding? I absolutely agree that we need to be much better at assigning responsibilities, as the Pitt review pointed out. That is particularly true because the causes of flooding are always complex and interdependent, and there is an enormous number of different people involved. Almost inevitably, we must have a system in which the county council, the district council, highways agencies and the Environment Agency have roles. Thames Water deals with sewerage. In that case, the asset was not primarily a flood asset but an aqueduct and drinking water asset.

As the flooding Minister, I am very aware that ultimately I have the responsibility for this and it is not enough simply to talk about a lot of agencies. We have to be clear about who does what when. My hon. Friend is right that that is particularly the case with what we call third-party assets such as sluices and aqueducts, which are owned and managed by others.

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has been a very important step forward in ensuring that we have a clear assignation of responsibilities, but I believe that such events illustrate that we still have more to do, and this is where I concede that my hon. Friend has raised an important point. We still have more to do as we must make it absolutely clear what will happen in such cases not just in Spelthorne but up and down the country. In this case, the Environment Agency is with us at the moment and I have had detailed discussions about Spelthorne with the agency partly as a result of the debate secured by my hon. Friend, so his constituents have reason to be grateful for his work on this.

It appears that we now have a clear protocol in place that sets a defined water level at which the sluice will be brought into operation. That has now been agreed with Thames Water. However, we will look very closely again at that protocol and will take this example as we go up and down the country to ensure that we are not stuck falling between two stools, which is a situation that we are often too close to.

In conclusion, let me express deep sympathy for those affected by flooding and recognise that recovery is a very long process for the people who were evacuated from their homes, who saw prized possessions destroyed and who went through fear and perturbation. In many cases, I have seen houses in Surrey to which people did not return for almost two years after the flooding occurred. They have lived elsewhere and have been through a truly terrible time.

With climate change, it is unfortunately very likely that we will see more of this in the future. The Government are investing unprecedented sums of money and we are putting £2.3 billion in capital investment into flood defences over the next six years. We will improve flood protection by 5% and 1,500 homes and businesses in the Thames area will be protected. I must thank the Environment Agency, Surrey County Council, the district council, our professional partners and Thames Water, which has looked closely at the subject.

We should not hide behind legal definitions. The challenge of accountability is absolutely central and we do not want to get into a world in which I perpetually appear here in Parliament saying that causes are very difficult and geomorphology is very difficult. It is easy for us to say, in some peculiar fashion, that these things are not really our responsibility and that even if they are, closing the sluice gate would not have made a difference, and even if we had wanted to close it perhaps we might not have been able to anyway. Generally, excuse is piled on excuse and we have to get much better at saying, “This is the person who is responsible,” and holding them accountable. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne for raising an issue that will, I hope, benefit not only his constituents but millions of people in the United Kingdom at a time of climate change.

Question put and agreed to.

draft Flood Reinsurance (Scheme and Scheme Administrator designation) regulations 2015 DRAFT FLOOD REINSURANCE (SCHEME funding and administration) REGULATIONS 2015

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 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 Flood Reinsurance (Scheme and Scheme Administrator Designation) Regulations 2015.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015.

[Rory Stewart]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. This is my very first time dealing with a statutory instrument, and I feel privileged to deal with this issue. As a Member of Parliament for a Cumbrian constituency, I, like many Members on both sides of the Committee, saw directly the devastation of flooding and felt directly the need to address the issue of flood insurance. In Eamont Bridge, for example, people are living in houses that were built in 1650—they have not been built recently on floodplains. I saw the total wrecking of people’s lives there. They felt they would never be able to get insurance again and were deeply anxious about what the floods would mean for their house prices, their families and their possessions. I would also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who put an immense amount of energy into very complex negotiations with the insurance industry, going from the statement of principles to the regulations that we are now in a position to debate.

As Members will be aware, the regulations ensure that under Flood Re, the flood insurance component of a buildings and contents policy for a band C home is anticipated to be £246 a year. Without Flood Re, and without the negotiation that my hon. Friend was so closely involved in, the price could be double that. Excesses, which can be in the thousands of pounds, will be limited to £250.

There are two sets of regulations to be debated today. The draft Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015 set out the framework within which Flood Re will operate, how the levy will be calculated and the technical aspects of the scheme. The draft Flood Reinsurance (Scheme and Scheme Administrator) Regulations 2015 designate the scheme administrator and enable Flood Re to begin operating. I pay tribute to the public, who worked closely with us in the consultation, and to specialists from the Association of British Insurers, to individual insurers, to the Lloyd’s market and to the financial regulators. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent North, who has been very involved—he has discussed it with me personally on a number of occasions—to the Committee on Climate Change and to Lord Krebs, whom I saw this morning.

It is important that the regulations are debated now because Flood Re will be signing multimillion-pound contracts for their reinsurance before Christmas and because financial regulators are currently considering Flood Re’s application for authorisation as a reinsurer, which is a highly rigorous and scrupulous process. Financial regulators and the insurance industry need certainty, and that is what the regulations are about. They provide for the legislative framework within which Flood Re will operate and for Flood Re to capitalise in order to meet its solvency requirements.

The making of the regulations, subject to parliamentary approval, needs to be carefully sequenced with the financial regulator’s approval and authorisation process. At the point at which we intend to make the regulations, we will check with the Prudential Regulation Authority that Flood Re’s application is still in the authorisation process. While the financial regulators cannot provide a definitive statement on the likelihood of an authorisation before the review is completed, that will provide an indication that the application is progressing and that financial regulators are in the process of formulating their view.

I shall now provide an overview of the major aspects of the regulations and deal briefly with individual issues including funding for Flood Re, public money, accountability and controls, premium thresholds, the review scheme every five years, the transition to the free market, and incentivising management of flood risk.

Flood Re will be funded by a levy raised from the relevant insurers. The amount of levy paid by each insurer will be based on the insurer’s share in the UK home insurance market. A small number of companies currently control about 70% of the market, and they will contribute about 70% of the levy. The total amount of the primary levy to be raised from insurers will be £180 million. However, given the unpredictable nature of flooding and Flood Re’s solvency requirements, an additional levy may be raised from insurers if needed.

The regulations set out the constraints that Flood Re needs to operate within, as the levy is likely to be classed as public money by the Office for National Statistics. This affects all the accountability mechanisms relating to Flood Re. Flood Re will operate independently as a normal reinsurance company regulated by the financial regulators, but, because of its unique position as a reinsurance company within the public sector, Flood Re is being set up as a bespoke arm’s length body of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This means Flood Re will be directly accountable to Parliament—this is a key point—rather than to Government. There will be very limited Government oversight.

DEFRA Ministers—my colleagues and I—will remain accountable to Parliament for general policy matters relating to flood risk management, including flood insurance and the regulations implementing Flood Re. There will, however, be no role for Ministers in the day to day management of Flood Re. As with all public sector bodies, Flood Re will be required to manage itself within the normal requirements for regularity, propriety and value for money, and full parliamentary accountability. It will be audited externally, but the National Audit Office will be able to conduct value-for-money reviews of any of its activities and report on those activities to Parliament.

The regulations and the scheme document set out the price that insurers will pay to cede policies to Flood Re. We call these, as Members will see in the documents, the premium thresholds, and they are payable by insurers according to council tax bands. The point is that we wish to target the benefits at the lower council tax bands. In other words, it is intended to be a progressive policy, and the intention is that those benefits will be passed on to the policyholders by the insurance industry.

The regulations require that Flood Re will review the level of the levy and the premium threshold at least every five years: in other words, it will try to calculate whether we have set the levy at the correct amount. Any changes to the scheme or levy would require amendments to regulations, which would have to be approved via an affirmative resolution process, and Ministers may also call a review of Flood Re at any point.

Members have shown considerable interest in how Flood Re will manage the transition to risk-reflective prices over the medium to long term. Flood Re will therefore publish a transition plan three months after the regulations come into force. That will be the first statement of how the transition will operate. It may then give indications of how prices will evolve during the life of Flood Re in order to encourage people to move towards risk-reflective pricing. But the financial regulators are clear that Flood Re cannot be bound to the indications because Flood Re’s solvency has to be assured. Flood Re will also provide information about flood risk and the scheme for the insurers to pass directly on to their customers. In other words, insurers and customers will be kept fully informed about the flood risk.

Members may wish to push Flood Re further on what it can do to incentivise people to manage their own flood risk and to take resilience measures. Flood Re will consider the role of incentives for policyholders to manage their flood risk in its transition plan, and it has been agreed with Flood Re that it will do this within two years of becoming fully operational, but the focus now has to be set on getting this complex scheme right.

Flood Re, like all reinsurers, will be permitted by financial regulation only to carry out the business of reinsurance and related operations. Flood Re directors also have to be able to fulfil their prudential and fiduciary duties according to company law and financial services regulation. The Government see that as the best approach to the funding and administration of Flood Re to achieve the objective of affordability and availability of flood insurance.

Having made quite a technical, geeky speech about details, I will finish by saying that, in the end, we have to step back to where we were coming out of the floods. We were potentially facing a crisis in insurance. All of us would have received emails, letters and pleas from constituents desperately worried about insurance.

The proposal achieves two basic principles that should be dear to us all. The first is the principle of universality—in other words, to ensure that simply because somebody is unlucky enough to live in house, perhaps built 300 years ago, that has been flooded, perhaps due to changes in climate and matters well outside their control, they should not suffer unduly. Secondly, it should be a progressive measure that ensures that the least well-off members of society are paying less than the better-off in the premiums they pay and the benefits they will receive from these schemes.

On that, Mr Nuttall, I commend the statutory instruments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

First, I pay tribute to the two Members who have made speeches, which were important in setting the context of the debate. They know the issue well. My opposite number, the hon. Member for Brent North, clearly laid out the context of rising flood risk and climate awareness and made us focus us hard on the issues of future flood resilience and the future costs of flooding. I will return to that at the end.

I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. This legislation is, in the normal practice of politics, a great idea that will make a lot of difference to some of the most vulnerable people in society: the 2% who are about to lose their flood insurance or face completely unaffordable levels of flood insurance.

The regulations address the situation of people who are absolutely desperate. It would be a great pity if what is basically a good news story—however we disagree about the details of its exact implementation—about providing coverage for those people at an affordable rate were lost in discussions about the minutiae and different details. What will matter to householders is that they can get insurance at an affordable rate and it is progressive, with the rate paid by poorer households lower than the rate paid by wealthier households.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and his predecessor for all their work on this issue. The regulations are hotly anticipated in Somerset, where they will bring not only insurance for many households, but real peace of mind. For two winters since the last major flooding event in the county, people have known that their homes have been uninsurable. The regulations are welcome, and I place on the record the enthusiasm of Somerset for all the security that they will bring.

[Rory Stewart]

I am grateful for that statement. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to communicate to their constituents and those concerned with flooding not only that we have managed to get to this stage, but that we are looking forward to next spring when the scheme is formally launched.

I want to touch briefly on the various points and criticisms made by the hon. Member for Brent North. I find some of them a little bewildering, and I would like to tease them out a bit more. His arguments seem to focus on four areas: awareness, affordability, the transition plan and the model of insurance.

To reassure him on awareness, an obligation is imposed through the regulations on Flood Re to communicate with the insurance industry and on the industry to communicate with the policyholders that they have entered the Flood Re scheme and that by definition they are therefore in the approximately 2% most vulnerable homes. Through the Environment Agency and our investment in new technology, we are absolutely committed to increasing our contact with people in the most vulnerable homes.

We have also been meeting in detail with different parts of the industry that are interested in providing flood resilience measures to individual households. There should be a potential market, and we need to develop it. Just as house and contents insurance has delivered developments in burglar alarms and other protective measures, it should be possible for flood insurance schemes eventually to drive a movement towards people taking resilience measures to drop their premiums. That is where we need to get to. We need a thriving, vigorous industry with a reasonable basic standard that can be offered to a household, saying, “If you do, x, y and z, the insurance industry will recognise that and drop your premium.”

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification of the points. Given that he believes there is not yet a certifiable standard for resilience measures to be put in, why does he seek not to give the power to the scheme administrator and Flood Re at this stage? They believe that such a facility is in place and that they can insist on resilience measures being put in as a condition of reinsurance. Why not give that power so that the industry can decide how it uses it, when it uses it and whether the market is ready to provide the appropriate benefits or not, rather than waiting for the Government to do a review and then decide whether they want to give the scheme administrator those powers?

I understand the problem. It may be that the market is not yet ready, but surely it is better to give the power to the scheme administrator straight away, so that the insurance companies can take the necessary action the moment they are ready, rather than waiting for a Government review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

There are essentially three separate problems with that proposal. The first is that the Flood Re administrator has no direct relationship with households. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Flood Re administrator’s relationship is with the insurance industry, and the relationship of the individual insurance companies—for example, Direct Line or Axa—is with the individual household. Whatever measures one is trying to put in place, there needs to be an interaction between the insurance company and the individual household.

The second issue is around the nature of the financial regulations that set up Flood Re. Flood Re, like all reinsurers, is only permitted by financial regulation to carry out the business of reinsurance and related operations.

The third issue—perhaps the most important—is that within three months, Flood Re will produce a transition plan and within two years those resilience measures will be in place. However, in the end it is primarily the responsibility of Government to work with Flood Re, the insurers and the households to get those measures in place; the constraint on that, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, is that the industry is not yet sufficiently developed to offer a standardised package. A burglar alarm is a much more straightforward thing.

Every one of these properties—not quite every one, but many of them—are in quite difficult, unique situations. The insurance industry is not yet in a position to be comfortable saying, “This exact measure on your door will reduce your insurance premium by £50”, in the way that it can with burglar alarms. It will take some time for what is basically a structure of small and medium-sized enterprises to be able to develop those products for the insurance industry.

The way in which the hon. Gentleman and I can engage in this process most directly is through the measures taken by the Environment Agency and, for the hon. Gentleman, more specifically through Parliament, to which Flood Re is accountable. It will be through Parliament’s review of that three-month transition plan and the two-year actions that we will be able to put in place the measures that we need over the next 25 years.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the fact that the period is 25 years should not mean that we all go to sleep for that time, do nothing and end up dropping off the edge of a cliff. Twenty-five years should be able to give us the right path to get those proper structures in place. It is Parliament’s responsibility to stay on top of that issue.

The second thing that the hon. Gentleman touched on was the question of affordability. He is correct that these statutory instruments do not deal with the duty of affordability. However, he will be aware that the duty of affordability is contained in the Water Act 2014, the debates on which he himself contributed to. Therefore, I do not believe that the duty needs to be in these statutory instruments.

Again, a statutory obligation is imposed through these statutory instruments to push forward with a transition plan. The most sophisticated arguments that the hon. Gentleman has made are around the question of mutualisation and insurance.

[Barry Gardiner]

There is something I would like to get on the record, Mr Nuttall. Importantly, the Minister has said that he believes that as the duty of affordability is latent within the 2014 Act, it need not be in these regulations. I do not want to tie him down, because I want clarity, but I would like him to write to me, perhaps after this debate, to set out absolutely clearly that that is the position. That would be extremely helpful.

[Rory Stewart]

I will be delighted to. To clarify, we have to be very careful about what we mean by affordability. Clearly, under both domestic and European legislation, we are not allowed to fix prices. This is a market mechanism. We are relying on competition in the market to operate, the theory being that there would be no reason for an individual insurance company to place a £250 contract with Flood Re if it was not necessary to do so, because a competitor insurance company would be able to offer the same insurance for £50 to the householder and there would be no recourse to Flood Re.

All our affordability calculations are predicated on the assumption that normal market competition will operate. The affordability works through setting the individual premiums and guaranteeing that the £180 million pot will stand behind those individual payments, capping both the premium payment and the excess payment. That is its basis.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am really grateful to the Minister for engaging in this way. I understand what he says about affordability. On his definition, as long as the market is operating to have competition in place, the result is affordability. However, it is important to recognise that the risk of climate change is increasing and the severity of floods may also increase.

Although, in the purely technical sense that the Minister outlined, if the market is operating people are likely to get the lowest market rate, the ordinary householder may not experience affordable insurance premiums because the risk is increasing and the Government are building on the floodplain. In fact, all the industry has to do is ensure that the price reflects that risk.

[Rory Stewart]

From the insurance company’s point of view, in the case of the households that are most at risk, Flood Re provides the ability to lay off the flood component of its household and buildings insurance, which for a basic rate council tax payer is in the region of the £220 to £250 mark. There would be no reason for an individual insurance company to make the flood component of its insurance exceed that amount—that is the purpose of the £180 million pot.

I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman on the basic questions with which he began, and we certainly need to look at this during the next 25 years: building on floodplains, climate change and increasing flood risk. That will have an impact right across the industry.

[Richard Benyon]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Can I urge the hon. Member for Brent North to be careful about making bland criticisms such as those about building on floodplains? London and York are floodplains. Do the comments apply to those great cities? The issue is about how we build on floodplains and how much flood resistance there is. We can all think of buildings on floodplains that were lunacy and should never have happened—perhaps the Environment Agency was ignored—but such sweeping statements on this important issue need to be qualified carefully.

[Rory Stewart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is correct. Building on floodplains is a question of doing detailed calculations; the point is not that floodplains cannot ever be built on. Scotland provides a good example in the constraints that it has placed on building on floodplains, but Scotland has certain advantages in terms of population movements and the nature of the land.

As my hon. Friend said, there are technical solutions that allow for building on floodplains in Britain in a more sensible fashion, but most important of all is the natural capital calculation. We need to be much more realistic about looking at the social and economic costs of building on floodplains. What are the likelihoods of a risk? How much is that likely to cost the householder? How much misery and distress is that likely to cause them? What impact might that have on house prices? When all that is taken into account, someone might still, for particular reasons, decide to build on a floodplain. There could be very good reasons to go ahead, but they must ensure they have gone through the due diligence and looked at the potential costs and risks of doing so.

That brings me to my conclusion. This has been a good and testing debate, as I have come to expect from the hon. Member for Brent North, and it means that we are now one step closer to ensuring affordable insurance. I am reassured that the Opposition are not challenging the measures. I think Members across the Committee would agree that the work done over the past few months by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, by the insurance industry and by many of our civil servants—who must be both relieved and exhausted at reaching this stage—has brought us to a pretty impressive model.

I would like the United Kingdom to boast about and share this model with the rest of the world, so that others can see how we have addressed the issue in a pragmatic and focused way. We have done it by working with the insurance industry instead of against it. We have included a very broad sweep of universal provision and have taken into account questions of transition. We have set up a 25-year process. All that shows long-term strategic thinking and market focus, which we should be proud of.

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach on Flood Re and the insurance industry for its hard work. This legislative framework is a good model for balancing pragmatic considerations of how a scheme can operate with public policy objectives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Flood Reinsurance (Scheme and Scheme Administrator Designation) Regulations 2015.

Draft Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015.—(Rory Stewart.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

1. What plans the Government have to protect hedgehogs.

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

The hedgehog is a priority species. As such, it is protected under the terrestrial biodiversity group, but fundamentally we rely on the countryside stewardship scheme to protect the habitat on which this iconic relative of the shrew depends.

[Oliver Colvile]

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the damage that badgers do to hedgehogs? Will he join my campaign to try to protect the hedgehog?

[Rory Stewart]

Badgers have been identified as one of a range of factors that can have an impact on the hedgehog population which, as Members will know, has declined from about 30 million to about 1.5 million over the past 50 years. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on hedgehogs and to the British Hedgehog Preservation Society.

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

I hope the Minister is aware that there is some black propaganda being put around about badgers and hedgehogs. In respect of the badger cull, I have always believed that we should use science and good research methods to find out what is going on. There has been a dramatic fall in the population of a much-loved species which is very important to our countryside. May we have the science on this, not some black propaganda blaming badgers?

[Rory Stewart]

A national hedgehog survey is currently being conducted, looking at exactly this issue. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, in relation to hedgehogs badgers are not a black-and-white issue.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hollobone]

It is a pretty miserable life being a hedgehog—they are covered in fleas, they are asleep for most of the year, when they do wake up, they are splattered on the road, and they are the favourite food of badgers. Will the Minister use his good offices with the hedgehog society and its national survey to ensure that alongside the badger cull there is a detailed survey of the impact of the increase in the hedgehog population in those parts of the country where badgers are being culled?

[Rory Stewart]

This is a scientific issue that is the responsibility of Natural England. We will look very carefully at the conclusions of the national hedgehog survey.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on ensuring broadband roll-out in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

12. How many flood defences the Government plan to build under their six-year flood defence programme.

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

The Government plan to invest in 1,500 schemes over the next six years. This £2.3 billion investment will provide extra protection to an additional 300,000 households.

[Matt Warman]

All my colleagues in Lincolnshire and I have been working closely on this issue. Will the Minister commit to protecting not only the excellent Boston barrier scheme, which will protect Boston, but the agricultural areas of Lincolnshire, and to working with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the drainage boards, to make sure we get the best possible result for the county?

[Rory Stewart]

I absolutely give that assurance. In addition to the Boston barrier, which is a £97 million programme, Lincshore is protecting 30 km of the Lincolnshire coast, with £7 million a year over 20 years providing additional protection to 16,000 homes, as well as to the farmland my hon. Friend has mentioned.

[Rebecca Pow]

The future of flood management on the Somerset levels—Taunton Deane covers quite a lot of the Somerset levels—depends largely on the establishment of the new Somerset Rivers Authority. Will the Minister provide an update on progress and give assurances that there will be adequate funding to ensure flood protection and management in the future?

[Rory Stewart]

Somerset has been a serious priority for the Government. More than £1 million has been invested in setting up the Somerset Rivers Authority. We have committed more than £15 million over the next six years to Somerset exactly to achieve the objectives laid out by my hon. Friend.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Despite the completion only a couple of weeks ago of a first-class, Rolls-Royce flood alleviation scheme in my constituency, the residents are still terribly anxious about insurance. Will the Minister update the House on where we are regarding insurance premiums for flood alleviation schemes?

[Rory Stewart]

Flood Re was established in May and will become operational in May next year. The House will have an opportunity to debate the regulations with me next week.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend reassure me that, as well as the hard engineered projects that will be funded by the large sum of money he has mentioned, there will be soft engineered projects that build on the experience in Pickering, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), which uses natural features such as woodland and coastland wetland areas, which protect coastal communities from flooding? Such schemes can be cheaper and more effective in certain circumstances.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend has an enormous amount of experience in this area. We can do much more to help on flooding, including restoration of peatland, woodland and wetland areas, which not only benefits flood alleviation, but considerably benefits habitats and the biodiversity that depends on them.

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

My hon. Friend has mentioned the Lincshore scheme, which is vital to protecting the Lincolnshire coast, and he will know that the deadline to ensure next year’s use of the scheme is this November. Will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) before November to discuss the final funding details for the scheme?

[Rory Stewart]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the final details of the Lincshore scheme, to which the Environment Agency is committed. The work, particularly the movement of sand, has taken the level of protection from one in 50 years to one in 200 years. That is something of which the House should be very proud.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government plan to take to meet the UN target of halving food waste by 2030.

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her extraordinary work on this matter, and for her private Member’s Bill, which she introduced yesterday. As she is aware, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, through Courtauld 2025, is taking considerable steps towards the achievement of that target.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for the interest he has so far shown in my ten-minute rule Bill. Under previous Courtauld commitments—the first three phases—80% of the reduction in food waste has come from households. There is still the real problem that more than half of food waste is in the supply chain. Does the Minister agree that we should leave it not to the voluntary action of food companies, but place a legal requirement on them to help us meet the target of halving food waste?

[Rory Stewart]

I am happy to sit down with the hon. Lady and look closely at the details of the Bill. Certain retailers, such as Tesco, are beginning to make huge progress, as she knows. Recently, there have been studies on, for example, bananas in the supply chain, and an app has been launched with FareShare to enable charities to get food from supermarkets. That is a good example of progress, but I am happy to learn more.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I am encouraged to hear that more than 90% of the food retail and manufacturing market have already signed up to the code voluntarily. Does the Minister agree that that is the best way to get the whole industry on board?

[Rory Stewart]

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Courtauld has been very impressive. This has been a cross-party activity, led by the extraordinary achievement of the Labour Government in bringing in the landfill tax. With 90% of retailers signed up, the significant reduction in food waste is genuinely impressive.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

7. When she last had discussions with her counterpart in the Scottish Government and what the subject was of those discussions.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Written Statements

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

I wish to update the House on progress on the Thames Tideway Tunnel since the written ministerial statement— 5 June 2014, Official Report, column 11WS—made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Owen Paterson).

The Thames Tideway Tunnel is an example of world leading British engineering at its best. It will boost economic growth across the capital, generate thousands of jobs and bring significant benefits to the natural environment by protecting the Thames from sewage. In the 21st century, the most dynamic city in the world should not have a river that is polluted by sewage every time there is heavy rainfall.

In the previous statement the Government confirmed they had required Thames Water to put the project out to tender by running a competitive procurement for an infrastructure provider that would be separate from Thames Water and would be responsible for delivering the project, including its financing.

The procurement was carried out under the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006. The Government and Ofwat were consulted throughout this process. On 14 July 2015 Thames Water announced that the consortium forming Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd was its preferred bidder for the project’s infrastructure provider. The shareholders are a consortium of pension funds and long-term investors represented by Allianz, Amber Infrastructure (representing International Public Partnerships and Swiss Life), Dalmore Capital and DIF.

On 12 August the European Commission announced that it was content that the state aid contained in the Government support package was compatible with the European Union’s internal market. The adopted decision is expected to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in due course.

On 14 August Ofwat announced that it had designated Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd as the infrastructure provider under the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013.

On 24 August Ofwat awarded Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd a Project Licence and commercial close was reached on the project. The Project Licence award followed two public consultations carried out by Ofwat in October 2014 and August 2015. Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd also signed the project documentation and the three main construction contracts with three consortia who will construct the tunnel.

In addition, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with other project parties, have entered into contracts constituting the Government’s contingent financial support for the project the “Government support package” and other associated documents. The Government support package has enabled the project to attract private sector finance at an acceptable cost for customers and will only be called upon if certain low-probability but high-impact risks arise during construction. If they do not materialise there will be no exposure for the taxpayer.

The Secretary of State, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd and Thames Water also signed the liaison agreement. This enables Government to monitor progress on the project and will assist with managing any likely calls on the Government support package.

I am placing the core contracts today in the Library of both Houses, subject to some commercial redactions. I understand that other contracts relating to the project will be made available in due course by the parties involved.

The competitions for both the infrastructure provider and the construction contracts were highly competitive. The winning bid for the infrastructure provider offered a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 2.497%, which is fixed, subject to the terms of the project licence, until the first price review following construction. The construction procurements delivered a target build cost which is unchanged from that estimated in 2011. As a result, Thames Water now estimates the project will lead to an average household customer bill impact which will peak at £20 to £25 by the mid-2020s (in 2015 prices), of which £7 is already included within customer bills. They also expect that their current average household bill for water and wastewater services will remain at the same level, before inflation, until at least 2020. This impact is considerably lower than the maximum estimate of £70 to £80 given in the written ministerial statement— 3 November 2011, Official Report, column 41WS—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). This is a significant and welcome reduction in the estimated bill impacts of the project.

From the first periodic price review following construction of the tunnel prices will be regulated by Ofwat as they are for the remainder of the industry.

Construction on the main drive sites is anticipated to start in late summer 2016 with physical completion scheduled for 2023.

Many parties have invested a great deal of time and effort to reach this significant milestone. Government look forward to continuing to work closely with Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, Thames Water and Ofwat so that it can manage the taxpayer risks that arise from the Government support package during the construction period and help ensure a successful outcome for customers, taxpayers and the environment.

[HCWS175]

Small Waste Oil Burners

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Written Statements

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

As part of our commitment to cleaner air the Government will amend the current environmental permitting guidance to state clearly that all small waste oil burners burning waste oils in England fall under the scope of the industrial emission directive. This will reduce emissions of air pollutants and it will require all operators of small waste oil burners burning waste oils to meet the requirements of the industrial emission directive or, alternatively, to choose to burn other fuels such as gas or fuel oils.

My Department will conclude a consultation on the amended guidance for England and measures available to help industry with the transition in October 2015. Following the consultation, new guidance will be published in December 2015 that will take effect in April 2016.

I have arranged for a copy of the document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy is also available on the gov.uk website.

[HCWS111]

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) for his contribution. Geographically, this debate represents a wonderful gathering of the many gateways to the broads, which seem to have more gateways than the fabled oriental city of 100 gates. We have here a great representation: North Norfolk, South Norfolk, North West Norfolk and Norwich North. We have a great Member representing Suffolk, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Above all, at the centre of this debate about the broads is my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland. This debate is a good example of the way in which the public can engage with such issues.

We have talked about the broads in technocratic terms, but of course, above all, the broads are a living space—a space for the cure of the soul. They are a unique creation that, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, are an example not exactly of a national park but of somewhere where the Sandford principle—the principle that conservation should dominate over leisure—has been explicitly rejected by the Broads Authority because of the important fact of navigation. Underlying that is the deep history that he, as a distinguished historian, has raised, which is the artificial creation of the broads through the medieval peat works.

In a sense, this debate is not just an extraordinary gathering of different Members of Parliament but a representation of the history of our nation: from Boudicca and the Iceni to the appearance of the Roman vessels; from the movements of the sea 2,000 years ago to those medieval peat works and to the contemporary phenomenon of people moving back and forth and looking at butterflies and bitterns while enjoying their boats. As a Member representing a national park in the north, I have the unique connection of Arthur Ransome, whose Swallows and Amazons jumped from my constituency down to my right hon. Friend’s constituency in their boats.

The two specific issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members relate to the questions of governance, planning and the park’s status, which I will take in reverse order. The Department was asked for a formal statement, which I will read before using my limited time to talk about the context underlying that formal statement:

“DEFRA are clear that the broads is not a national park and the Broads Authority is not a national park authority. However, we do recognise the benefits of the powerful, international national park brand”—

I do not like “international national park brand” as a formulation—

“and the value that utilising it in the broads could bring. We are clear these proposals should in no way detract from the Broads Authority navigation responsibility.”

In other words, we absolutely acknowledge that, in the central features of the broads—the incredible combination of habitat, environment, leisure and a spectacular historical landscape—we have the essential features that we attempt to protect across the country, whether through our national parks or our areas of outstanding natural beauty. As Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am proud to be responsible for the nearly 25% of the United Kingdom’s landmass that is protected in that way. Clearly, the broads must be included in the broad common sense of a protected landscape.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Would the Minister mind once in four minutes facing my way?

[Rory Stewart]

I am so sorry, Mr Turner; I apologise. I will stand back and face you when speaking. In fact, I will move my microphone to ensure that I am audible while doing so.

The central question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland raises is about the status of the park. Underlying the slightly technical response from the Department is a fundamental distinction between the broad philosophical arrangements of the Broads Authority, which are to protect the landscape, and the exact legal status. National parks were set up under separate legislation, and, because of the issues raised by the Sandford principle and navigation, the Department does not wish to imply that the specific legislation relating to national parks should control the Broads Authority.

Governance was the second issue raised; the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) particularly focused on it. It was addressed in a statement made by Lord Gardiner of Kimble in the other place. Lord Gardiner made explicit that the Government do not intend to bring forward the legislation necessary to enable elections to be held. I will explain, from the point of view of the Department, why that is our determination.

The determination was made for various specific reasons relating directly to the interests of the broads. One is that the number of people living within the Broads Authority area itself is relatively limited. When the Broads Authority was set up, a relatively narrow line was drawn around the edge of the authority. It crosses some population-dense areas, but the number of people who live within the authority and own boats for example—to address the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland—is relatively limited. Approximately 10,000 people currently have licences to operate boats within the Broads Authority, but only a minority of those live within the Broads Authority area itself.

[Norman Lamb]

I have two questions. First, for the avoidance of doubt, is the Minister saying that the proposed rebranding of the broads will have no impact at all on the current legal status, which excludes the Sandford principle from the Broads Authority? I would like confirmation of that. Secondly, is he saying that the Government intend not to proceed with any legislation in respect of any of the national parks in England, thereby not following the route taken in Scotland where they have introduced direct elections?

[Rory Stewart]

I am saying both those things. Just to reinforce that absolutely clearly for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they. We are very comfortable with the broads describing themselves as a national park, but that is essentially to express in common-sense terms to the public that it is a protected landscape with many of the qualities of other national parks.

We are certainly proud of the Broads Authority. We do not expect it to be a second-class authority or its specific legal status to undermine the respect and the honour that we have towards it. It is not governed under the national parks legislation; it is governed under separate legislation, and that will remain the case.

The Government do not intend to bring forward the legislation that the right hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned, and I shall explain why. It would not achieve the intention, which is to get more people involved in boats and navigation on to the board. We are achieving that at the moment. The two most recent Secretary of State appointments to the Broads Authority are of people who have licences. More than one third of people on the board are active users of boats and licence holders, and that is important. In so far as I am involved in Secretary of State appointments, I will endeavour to ensure that they include people who have an active interest in navigation as well as the environment.

[Norman Lamb]

Can the Minister explain two things? First, one year ago, under a coalition Government in which Conservatives were in the majority, the draft legislation was brought forward by his Department. His Department therefore must have regarded its merits and been prepared to take it through. It would be fascinating to get through a freedom of information request the advice that Ministers received at the time in favour of bringing the legislation forward.

Secondly, I know all the arguments against elections, but there still seems to be the prospect of some form of election, not only for local communities, but for other interest groups—wildlife, environment or anything else. That, I think, is the view of most MPs in the area.

[Rory Stewart]

I take that point strongly on board. The advice that I have received is that the democratic element on the Broads Authority is represented by the fact that the majority of people serving on the board are elected. Nine people have been elected as councillors. The two people who have been elected by the people with navigation interests are themselves elected.

The majority of the people on the Broads Authority are currently elected and they are balanced by a minority of Secretary of State appointees, which allows us to achieve exactly the right hon. Gentleman’s point; that would be more difficult to achieve simply though elections. It ensures that we have a broad range of people with both environmental and navigation interests.

[Mr Bacon]

May I assure the Minister that although I have had consistent pressure from my constituents on the issue of the broads for many years, that pressure has not been for elections? With respect to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has now left the Chamber, I do not think that it is the most important issue. The pressure from my constituents comes from the constant concern about the chiselling away of the boating interest. A large number of jobs and the tourist industry depend on boating. In answering those points, can the Minister let me know whether he will accept an invitation to visit my constituency—in particular Loddon, which is, of course, the true gateway to the broads?

[Rory Stewart]

“My Father’s house has many gateways.”

The question about boating interests is important and we need to look at it very closely. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Broads Authority is the third largest controller of navigable waterways in the country, after the Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency. We try very carefully to benchmark the charges imposed by the Broads Authority against those for comparable canals and riverways. At the moment, the charges—certainly for larger vessels—are considerably cheaper than those imposed by the Canal & River Trust, but we will monitor the situation carefully.

I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Secretary of State wants to make it clear that she is very much looking forward to visiting the broads herself—and, indeed, going through the gateway mentioned.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk raised the question of planning, which is central. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) has been particularly interested in planning around Thorpe island. She has worked closely with the Broads Authority to ensure that action to ensure that Thorpe island is a responsible, aesthetically pleasing element of the broads is carried through—something that I believe local residents are strongly in favour of. A legal review is in process at the moment, so I do not want to get involved in that, but my sense is that the authority is broadly sympathetic to the position of my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am proud that the authority has so far had a good record on planning approval—95% of plans brought forward have been approved, against a national average of 87%.

I conclude by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland for putting forward the nub of the issue, which is the balance between the different values of beauty, tourism and navigation. Nothing illustrates that more than what has been happening in Hickling broad. My right hon. Friend, who has a strong interest in military history, will have been moved by the use of Hesco bastions and technology from Afghanistan in the creation of new mud islands for bitterns. That has allowed us to dredge sustainably to provide access to navigation while protecting the habitat. The Broads Authority matters deeply to us as a breathing space and a cure for the soul.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads.

Sitting suspended.

Coastal Flood Risk

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) for securing this important debate. Flooding is one of the biggest challenges that the nation faces, and it is of immense importance, particularly in the hon. Lady’s constituency.

Coastal flooding on the east coast is particularly extreme. Hon. Members from all over the country have made moving speeches, but it is difficult to think of any communities that face a more extraordinary collection of challenges than those on the Humber. Events that normally affect coastal flooding, such as low pressure zones and the height of the tides—this year, tides are at an 18-year high—combine with the geography of the east coast of England and the very low-lying land to make the Humber particularly vulnerable. It is good that hon. Members have focused on that problem.

In his good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made an analogy with the tidal surge of 1953 and pointed out that the 2013 coastal surge in the Humber was 1.93 metres higher. Although that is true, the coastal surge in 1953 resulted in the flooding of 24,000 properties and the death of more than 300 people; in contrast, in 2013, despite the fact that the surge was much higher, only 2,800 houses were flooded, no lives were lost and—perhaps most importantly for the Government—156,000 properties were protected on the Humber.

The tone of the debate has been, understandably, concerned and occasionally negative, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that the Environment Agency and the Flood Forecasting Centre have made huge progress in making us safer against flooding. The basic arguments made by right hon. and hon. Members can be divided into three categories: the value of that which we protect from floods, the threat posed by the floods and our response to those floods. Our response includes advance prevention; capital and investment and maintenance to ensure that flood defences are in place; recovery measures; and, underlying everything—and as raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—forecasting.

In the short time available, I will try to touch on all those issues. Powerful arguments have been made about the economic value of that which we protect from flooding. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes focused on the unique industrial base around his constituency, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) drew attention to power generation in his. More fundamental than the economic importance of these areas, however, is the protection of human lives. As the Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border, I have, like everyone in this room, seen the impact of floods, and it is extraordinary to experience something that feels so biblical. I have seen families staring in disbelief at their possessions floating on the floodwater. I have witnessed the terror, the risk to people’s lives, and the complete upset of the ordinary relationship between land and water that flooding causes. We have an obligation, in a time of climate change, to make sure that that does not persist.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described the £800,000 of damage caused by flooding to transport infrastructure in Northern Ireland, which illustrates the problems that flooding can cause in the absence of proper prevention. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) described the damage done in their constituencies by uncontained flooding. Their contributions bring us to the central question of flood response, which can be broken down into prediction, prevention, emergency response and recovery.

I am delighted to welcome to Westminster Hall the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who is following in the footsteps of his distinguished predecessor. He and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd raised some constitutional issues. As both hon. Members are aware, we are discussing a fully devolved issue, but one on which we can learn from each other. One of the great advantages of devolution has been the opportunity to look at each other’s approaches, particularly for my Department. The environment was one of the earliest things to be devolved, so we have been able to learn from Wales on recycling and from Zero Waste Scotland. I hope that we can learn from each other when it comes to flood insurance schemes, and there are certainly things that we can learn from Scotland on planning.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) raised a serious question about strategic thought. Governments are not always as good at strategic thought as they could be, but I am more reassured about the approach to flooding than I am about other aspects of government. The Environment Agency has a 100-year plan for shoreline management, which is a much more expansive and long-term form of planning than we are accustomed to.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I indicated the need to bring Government bodies together. In particular, we need to reach outside local government, regional government and Westminster towards Europe. Has the Minister given any thought to how we can best do that? In meetings in my constituency, we have brought all those people together. There is a European aspect to the long-term strategic response, so we need to involve Europe. Will the Minister give us some thoughts on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I am happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and talk about his experience in his constituency. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby talked about detriment to fishermen, and European funds have contributed £400,000 to repairing the damage to fishing equipment that has been caused by extreme flooding events. There are many more ways in which Europe can participate, and I would be interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s experience.

Partnership is at the core of everything that we are trying to do. We are finding ways to bring together the excellent work of the Environment Agency, the genuine concerns of local authorities, the knowledge of people such as farmers—my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes has touched on that—and the private sector. Port authorities are highly profitable private industries, which have an obligation to invest in their own capital infrastructure.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that in areas such as mine, where the railway line at Rufford is at risk from flooding, Network Rail should contribute financially to the internal drainage board, which is on the table, and not leave the matter in the hands of farmers and rate payers?

[Rory Stewart]

That is an interesting proposal. I do not want to be bounced into looking at something that I have not thought about, but the basic principle behind my hon. Friend’s suggestion is correct. One would want all those stakeholders to contribute to IDBs. I would be interested to see whether that would work for Network Rail, and I would be happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and talk about that in more detail.

At the heart of the contributions by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and the shadow Minister was the question of resources. The discussion is becoming a slightly tedious one in which statistics are played back and forth. As the shadow Minister will be aware, because he has heard us say it again and again, we have invested more resources in flooding, in cash terms and in real terms, than the previous Labour Government did during their last five years.

[Ms Ritchie]

This has been an interesting debate, but there have been suggestions that flood defence spending is at least £500 million below what is needed to keep pace with increased floods and rising sea levels. How do the Minister and his Department intend to address that, notwithstanding tomorrow’s Budget and its implications?

[Rory Stewart]

What exactly does the hon. Lady mean? Does she mean that there should be a particular target such as a once-in-100-years, a once-in-75-years or a once-in-200-years flood risk? How exactly would she weigh up expenditure on two or three isolated houses against other forms of expenditure? I ask because the Environment Agency runs extremely complex and serious models to try to get the right relationship between Government spending, public spending and the risk on the ground. Our models show that we have improved the level of flood protection by about 5%, rather than just keeping up with it, so I am interested in the source of her statistic. If she would like to sit down with me, I would be happy to discuss it in more detail.

[Barry Gardiner]

I will try to be brief, but I want to enlighten the Minister on the question of funding. Simply, the projections are based on the peak year of 2010, after which there was an initial cut of some £200 million in the following two years. The Government then amended that figure for restoration, which was emergency funding. The bar charts and graphs produced by the Committee on Climate Change show that that funding bumped the figures above the original projected gain line. The Environment Agency has put in two new lines below that level, but those lines are deemed to be “best possible” and “rather optimistic” scenarios by the Committee on Climate Change. I recommend that the Minister looks at the reports and graphs by the Committee on Climate Change because they explain the situation in some detail and show exactly what the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) said.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I looked at the reports by the Committee on Climate Change because he, or somebody else, tried to submit an urgent question. I reassure him that I am the responsible person in the Department because I was being prepared for that urgent question on the climate adaptation report.

The central issue for this debate is not simply whether we define the emergency funding as part of the Government spend over the past five years; it is, at least from my point of view, that the six-year commitment in Government spending has allowed us to do much smarter long-term planning. The Environment Agency has done that well, and we were able to make considerable savings. It is a real model. Whoever is in government next—including the shadow Minister, if he were to take over—the most important thing is ensuring that the Treasury makes such long-term settlements, which have completely transformed the way we do our capital planning.

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the Minister for his reflections on where we can learn from each other across these islands. Does he see an opportunity for greater European co-operation in his long-term planning? The importance of the European Union was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Is this an area where we should be deepening our co-operation with the European Union, and is that part of his planning for the future?

[Rory Stewart]

In theory, I am very comfortable with that suggestion; in practice, a great deal of this is extremely local. There are four fundamental types of flooding in Britain, and a lot of that flooding is governed by specific weather patterns and geography. Much of the mitigation is governed by local knowledge, but of course I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman has ideas that he would like to share, particularly from Europe.

In the limited time available, I will touch on the four main issues raised by hon. and right hon. Members today. Those issues seem to fall into the categories of new technical solutions, the prioritisation of flood spending, emergency response and recovery. On new technical solutions, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby raised the question of dredging, particularly in relation to Freshney. My hon. Friends the Members for Wells and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) talked about upland attenuation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells also raised the issue of barrages, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool talked about the Heugh breakwater.

Different technical solutions have been proposed. I am happy if hon. Members want to take up those proposals and see why the Environment Agency is pursuing other technical solutions and has different views on the breakwater at Heugh, for example. I assure the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that we will look again at Freshney in this financial year, and she will of course be aware that dredging is not a solution in all cases and can lead to higher and quicker movements of water downstream. Upland attenuation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells will be aware, can help in limited areas but is not suitable for large catchment areas and extreme flooding events.

Prioritisation is partly a question of perception. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes, for example, raised the concerns of farmers in Barrow. We have committed £4.6 million towards the £6 million scheme that will directly address the needs of the farmers of Barrow. The hon. Member for Hartlepool mentioned the power plant. Again, nobody doubts the importance of that power plant but, as he is aware, it is on relatively high ground. We calculate that, at the moment, there is a one-in-1,000 risk for that power plant, so we do not consider it a priority. If he has different information, he should by all means come to us.

The shadow Minister mentioned the Hythe and Lydd ranges, where I have been on built-up-area exercises. He made an important point, and the Ministry of Defence can be expected to contribute. I am happy to have that discussion again with the MOD. On the general question of the prioritisation of coastal flood erosion over other forms of flooding, I can reassure hon. Members that 43% of the £23 billion that we have committed to flooding is directly directed towards coastal flooding.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby talked about emergency response, which is the third conceptual issue. We have an increasingly sophisticated operation through the gold commands, the Environment Agency emergency room and Cobra. I take on board the shadow Minister’s point about local authority plans, which I am happy to follow up. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby also raised the issue of recovery, on which there is more we can do. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd talked about buying. We have chosen the Flood Re insurance scheme model, but there has been some examination on the east coast of exactly those kinds of models, which I am happy to discuss in more detail.

The final conceptual issue is prediction, which reminds us how flooding is so incredibly technical. North Lincolnshire Council asked why we are less good at predicting surface water floods than coastal floods, river floods and groundwater floods. The answer, of course, relates to the source of those floods. North Lincolnshire Council needs to understand that, if we are lucky, we can get four or five days’ notice of a coastal flood because such flooding is governed by the height of the tides, by a low pressure system and by the speed of the wind. We can see the height of the water in a river, and we can see groundwater. Surface water flooding, particularly at the moment, is caused by summer thunderstorms. The Met Office finds surface water much more difficult to address because—to make an analogy—although we can see that bubbles will raise the top of a boiling pot, we cannot tell where those bubbles are going to be. However, we plan to invest some £96 million in a new supercomputer that will increase sixteenfold our ability to do the kind of projections, and provide the kind of support, that are needed.

Over the next six years, we have a £2.3 billion programme covering more than 1,500 projects, and we aim further to reduce the risk to at least 300,000 households. That investment—the shadow Minister is now bored with these statistics—will help to avoid more than £30 billion of economic damage and will help economic development and growth. We estimate that every £1 invested in that way brings us at least £9 of economic benefit. That is why I agree with everyone who has spoken. I therefore pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, but I also pay tribute to everyone else for their service to their constituencies and their understanding of local needs. There is almost nothing in government that is more important than focusing on preventing floods and protecting communities against such risks. Nothing else can be as devastating to communities, and there is nothing else in which I am as proud to participate as a Minister.