Flooding

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and that is an interesting idea. We will progress the review by examining the cases in which we think things have gone well, and as I touched on in answer to the previous question, I think that there were only a few cases that showed a need to see how we can co-ordinate better. The co-ordination is the key point.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Over Christmas, it was clear that households and businesses in Snape, Eyke and Southwold were still suffering from the floods earlier in December. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the role of internal drainage boards will continue to be enhanced, and will he consider with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and others a sensitive scheme of felling trees in sensitive areas to prevent trees from bringing down power lines?

[Mr Paterson]

IDBs certainly have a great role to play, and I am a strong supporter of them. It is all part of our long-term proposal to push responsibility for low-risk waterways down to as local a level as possible. That is how we can help to free up a lot of those waterways, which have been blocked because work on them was stopped under the previous Government. I am happy to discuss my hon. Friend’s other question with her directly.

Waveney (Coastal Flooding)

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is important that additional funding goes to local authorities for the costs they incur—I will come on to talk about the Bellwin formula—and to the Environment Agency, for capital works. I pay tribute to the EA, in particular, for the warning it gave leading up to this tragedy.

It is important that the Government review the policies and strategies they have in place to deal with such events. Concerns have been expressed to me that they were not devised with serious coastal flooding in mind. The Pitt review, which was set up by the previous Government after the storms in autumn 2007, appears to have some deficiencies in that it does not address coastal flooding and erosion properly. Its recognition of the need to protect the economy is too limited. Similar criticisms can be made of the new flood and coastal erosion risk management plan that was introduced in 2011. It, too, places insufficient weight on the need to protect the economy or recognise fully the differences between inland flooding, which is temporary, and coastal flooding and erosion, which can be terminal for affected properties and assets.

I would be grateful if the Minister advised on whether the Government have reviewed or plan to review Flood Re, the flood insurance scheme, which is being taken forward at present. Does it fully take into account, and provide for, the events that took place on 5 December? If not, will the Government make amendments so that it does?

The Bellwin scheme is the main vehicle through which the Government will deliver financial support to local communities by reimbursing local authorities for immediate costs incurred in the storm surge. Based on the feedback I have received there is a concern that the scheme, which was originally established in 1983, is no longer fit for purpose. I would be interested to learn what feedback the Government have had in that regard, but I will draw various conclusions to the Minister’s attention.

As a result of recent changes in the localisation of business rates, any rate relief granted by councils to affected businesses will in part be met by them rather than entirely by the Government, as was the case in the past. The scheme is too time-limited and restrictive. It does not cover the costs incurred in repairing sea defences that have been weakened by the event, and is not generally supportive of capital expenditure, which is necessary to repair sea defences. In Waveney, that is estimated at £120,000, while I am advised that in North Norfolk it could be £1 million.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is my neighbour and we share Waveney district council. We were both astounded by the level of the surge and I agree that we need extra capital funding. My understanding is that in Southwold alone an extra £2 million is needed. I join my hon. Friend in praising the Environment Agency—in particular, Dr Charlie Beardall and his team—and the councils for ensuring that people were aware in advance and could prepare as much as possible. They definitely need the resources to fix the problem again.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention, with which I agree wholeheartedly.

A further problem with the Bellwin scheme is that the two-month limitation that applies to expenditure means that extensive capital works are excluded if they cannot be completed in that time scale, which in the current circumstances could be very difficult to achieve. The costs of employing additional temporary staff or contractors are also not covered.

In the light of those and other concerns, there is a worry that Bellwin on its own will not be able to achieve the Secretary of State’s objective of getting places back on their feet quickly. In the short term, there is a need for communities to look at a variety of measures that manage flood risk. They include the provision of flood boards and valves in air bricks and in WCs, and liaison with the insurance industry to ensure that, where such protection measures are in place, it provides cover on realistic terms. It is also necessary to plan for the future. I believe that owing to rises in sea levels such events will occur with increased frequency, and I am conscious that in Lowestoft there have now been two such events in the past six years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

As has been made clear, measures in the Bellwin formula enable the Government to reimburse councils. As one who represents an area that has been flooded, I have seen how the system operates. For example, there are always different implications for two-tier and single-tier local government areas. The Department for Communities and Local Government takes those issues very seriously in its interaction with councils, and it will be discussing with councils what is necessary in this instance.

Local resilience forums and the various front-line responders all along the east coast have been planning and preparing for an event such as this for some time. A prime example is the east coast flood framework document that was published in January this year, which sets out local response arrangements. It was prepared by a wide range of local authorities and other front-line responders, including those in the Waveney constituency, working with central Government to ensure alignment with wider national resilience planning. It is testimony to their efforts that the impacts, although, as we have heard, devastating for those directly affected, are on a much smaller scale than those of the comparable coastal flooding event in 1953. However, there are always lessons to be learnt from our response to events such as this. I assure the House that the Government will review their approach, and that we will improve our planning and preparedness accordingly.

Flood management is a top priority for the Government. It has a vital role to play in protecting people and property from the damage caused by flooding and in delivering economic growth and supporting a strong economy. I was particularly impressed, when I visited Clacton, to hear about its plans to use the flood defences to restore the sandy beach, which should also have economic benefits. There is a clear case for investing in flood defences not only because of the economic risks attached to flooding but because of what they can bring to the local economy. That is an excellent project. I know that the situation in Lowestoft is being considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has outlined, and I look forward to hearing about the proposals for its flood defences. Commitments have been made by local partners to invest in them, and that will no doubt make the case for investment in the scheme even better.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I thank the Minister for his response so far. Will he also lobby the Department for Communities and Local Government on the use of the coastal communities fund, which exists to promote jobs and growth, to see whether funds could be made available to improve flood defences, which could protect existing jobs as well?

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the pots of money that are available for local communities. Sometimes a case can be made for linking them to various projects. I have learned about a case in the past week for investment in economic growth to be joined with work on flood prevention. It is an excellent example—

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

There will still be air quality monitoring; we are talking about the level of monitoring. We want to focus resources on where we can do the most on this issue.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am pleased that the marine conservation designation for the Stour and Orwell site has not been approved. I thank the Minister for that, and can he assure me that it will not be reconsidered in future rounds?

[George Eustice]

Throughout all the assessments we have made of these designations, we have taken account of socio-economic factors, and in the case of Stour and Orwell that was one of the effects we looked at. We recognise the importance of those ports to the economy, both locally and nationally, and that is why we decided not to designate in that instance.

Marine Conservation Zones

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I do not believe that there is any evidence to support it. The evidence from the Government’s own survey suggests that the spoonworms, which they are seeking to protect, are recovering strongly. The Kent Wildlife Trust’s submissions made it clear that it was not party to the latest survey information.

We must not gamble on the matter. If a case could be made to show that the waters in the area are causing grave concern, and that there is a real conservation risk that would impact in the near term on the biodiversity of the waters in Hythe bay, in turn on the local fish and shellfish populations, and then on local fishermen’s livelihoods, the debate would be viewed in a different way. Families are worried that the waters on which they depend will become unavailable and drive them out of business altogether, or drive them to seek new waters elsewhere along the channel coast, moving to already congested fishing areas around Rye and down the coast. They are worried that such a decision will have to be taken without a clear and robust scientific case behind it. That case does not seem to exist.

Fishermen are conscious of the fact that they fish in a special area of water and that it is of great interest because of its rich biodiversity. They are happy for it to continue to be monitored and studied, but they believe that the level should be set at “maintain” and not “recover” because the case is simply not there for a recovery plan to be put in place, and if it was, it could have devastating consequences for businesses and the fishing heritage of the coast.

I have had meetings as part of my discussions with the fishing industry with Fisherman’s Beach in Hythe, Ken Thomas and councillor Tony Hills of Lydd, who represent the fishermen from Hythe, Lydd and Dungeness, and with Folkestone Trawlers to get the views of fishermen in Folkestone, who also fish in Hythe bay. A petition has been raised, which was signed quickly by more than 1,000 residents. I presented it to Downing street with Councillor David Monk, who is the leader of Shepway district council, the local authority.

As part of our submission to the Government—I have also made a formal submission as part of the consultation on marine conservation zones—we have requested that serious consideration be given to the argument for the zone being set at “maintain” rather than “recover”. We have also asked whether the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for fisheries, could meet the fishermen, see the waters that they fish and the type of equipment that they use, in order to understand the local case that they are making. They tried, as part of the initial consultation, to make the case—they felt that it was not listened to—about other waters that may be more suitable, why the special nature of Hythe bay needs to be protected and maintained, and that we should not lose the important inshore fishing fleet, which has been part of the culture, heritage and the economy of the south-east Kent coast for many centuries.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I remind colleagues that permission should be sought from the Member who secures the debate and from the Minister. The Minister has indicated that he is happy for other people to speak briefly, if that will help.

[Dr Coffey]

Thank you, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing extra contributions.

On marine conservation zones, people generally agree that it is important to protect our seas. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe was discussing the importance of his fishing community. My own fishing community has been part of aspects of the Greenpeace and the Fish Fight campaign about protecting diversity. However, in my constituency, there has been local uproar in Aldeburgh, Orford and surrounding areas about the potential designation of the Alde and Ore estuary. That, again, as my hon. Friend referred to, is based on flawed evidence.

There are different examples—the Alde and Ore has three or four characteristics, one of which relates to smelt. However, there has only been one sighting of smelt in eight surveys over five years, and partly that is because it is not a freshwater river. Smelt is normally found in those areas, and although local fishermen have seen it once, that was deemed to be because it was chasing its food stock. The issue of being a rocky habitat beggars belief locally. It is believed that the rocky habitat now deemed so special was ballast tossed off barges about 40 years ago—they are, literally, big circular discs. There is astonishment that that can now be treated as something special and grounds on which to curtail activity. In terms of muddy gravels, no evidence has been supplied. More work is going on in that area.

With all that is happening, the Marine Management Organisation is getting in on the act and causing quite a lot of concern for local activities—whether it is painting the lines for racing, or repairing a patch on the slipway. We were promised by DEFRA—and the Department has delivered—that some deregulation would be undertaken by the MMO, but not if the area is in a designated MCZ. Some small activities are being hampered or cost a lot of money to fulfil. I also refer to the larger one in the Stour and Orwell estuaries.

There is no doubt that my constituency—about 40% is designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty—has almost any designation that we can think of. There are Ramsar sites and special protection areas, and all those different things. The port of Felixstowe has been able to work alongside precious habitat nearby to ensure that that is preserved. At the same time, while trying to continue as a commercial port, the marine conservation zone suggested for the area throws blanket coverage over the entire estuary, which is causing great consternation among the Harwich Haven Authority and the port about future activity. At the moment, certain areas where there is special designation are protected, and that should be respected, but I am very concerned that some unintended consequences of what is notably a good policy—trying to restore and conserve parts of our seas—may cause big problems for my constituents and their businesses in future.

EU Fisheries Negotiations

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

The issue of haddock in the south-west is a product of the situation that I mentioned earlier, whereby the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea simply examines one stock on its own. In most of the UK waters we have mixed fisheries, and there is a danger that we can—I have already used this expression in Committee today—make the perfect the enemy of the good. If we are tied to one species, in this case a “choke species”, it can result in more discards and worsen the sustainability of wider stocks. That was why we argued successfully for a reduction in the cut.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am sure that the fishermen who fish in Sole bay will be delighted by the increase in eastern channel sole, as will those in Southwold, Orford, Sizewell and elsewhere in my constituency. Does the Minister share my concern, though, about the comments of the chief executive of the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association that the deal was damaging, when it has actually proved a lifeline for many of our coastal fishermen?

[Richard Benyon]

I think the chief executive’s comments were a pity, because if he had looked closely at what we achieved he would have seen an improved prospect for the year ahead across all sectors and around all our coasts. That includes some valuable stocks that are of particular interest to his members, so I accept my hon. Friend’s point.

Ash Dieback Disease

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I speak as the Member of Parliament for Mid Norfolk, which sits right at the heart of the Norfolk cluster of the disease, and as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on agricultural science, which is taking a close interest in the matter. I know that all colleagues agree that this outbreak is a serious problem for our forestry industry and our landscape. I welcome the urgency of the reaction shown by the Secretary of State and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, and the professionalism with which they have handled the issue. More than 100,000 trees were felled in the summer, and the biggest ever survey of ash trees has been conducted. We have also seen several Cobra meetings, a national summit and an immediate ban on imports.

Outbreaks of disease that affect our biodiversity are never easy to manage, and it ill behoves the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) to criticise the Government in the way she did. Her words were somewhat at odds with the reaction of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who I think all colleagues would agree has dealt with the matter in an extremely responsible way. He has also sat in the Chamber today and listened to the entire debate.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is a former forestry envoy, and it was interesting that he devoted his speech largely to criticising the Government, rather than talking about the responsibility of the previous Administration. The truth is that this is a wake-up call for us all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has said, and it is unhelpful wilfully, negligently or merely incompetently to distort the scientific evidence, to peddle petty personal conspiracy theories or to scaremonger.

I welcome the Minister’s clear, careful account of the issue. I particularly welcome his reassurance that the disease is not spreading, and that funding for plant health has not been cut—indeed, it has increased. I strongly endorse his acknowledgement of the role of the many voluntary groups and charities that have helped to support the Department’s work. The key now is to focus on what we can do to prevent the spread of the disease. We must use the British science base to explore all possible avenues—not least, resistance—and to put in place a proper framework for biosecurity.

The Government have taken a series of important steps in relation to prevention, and it is important to acknowledge the Minister’s assertion that the disease is not spreading now. We have some time in which to put in place a proper framework, which is why a responsible reaction from Members on both sides of the House is important. I also welcome the launch of the tree health action plan and the imposition by the Secretary of State of an immediate ban on imports. Unfortunately, however, the scientific evidence shows that because the disease has been allowed to incubate in this country for many years—probably between 10 and 15—we might not be able to eradicate it. Our ash population could be facing a serious epidemic.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Seven or eight outbreaks of the disease have been identified in mature woodlands in my constituency, yet in one of those woodlands no ash trees have been planted for 20 years. Is it not therefore plausible to suggest that it could be carried in on the wind or by birds, especially in the light of the maps of the infected sites?

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point based on the evidence in her own constituency, which also sits at the heart of the East Anglian cluster. She allows me to draw attention to the map, which is extremely compelling. It shows that 90% of all incidences of the disease are down the east coast, and most of those are on the bit of the east coast that is closest to Europe and that is affected by the prevailing winds from the east.

I am quite pessimistic about the long-term prospect of our controlling and stopping the disease, but there is a glimmer of optimism in the science of resistance, and it is to that subject that I shall now turn. There are signs that some of our older ash trees might have developed a resistance to the disease, and we now have an opportunity to show scientific leadership by throwing as much resource as possible into identifying a solution.

Ash Dieback Disease

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady simply is not correct. I have explained the sequence of events and the fact that we have in no way reduced the resources available for plant and tree health.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Pound farm in Suffolk is a mile from my constituency boundary, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Will the Minister update the House on what proactive policies are being put in place for local home owners and residents? Will there be a proactive felling and burning policy, and how will it be communicated?

[Mr Heath]

We certainly need to communicate with local people who have forestry interests and trees on their property about what they should be looking for. I will not pre-empt the discussions with the experts on the ground about precisely what is the right action to take, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will apply all available resources to the problem, because we do not want it to spread further if we can possibly avoid it.

Water White Paper

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I commend that company. I was with its chairman just the other day discussing this issue. We have to learn how water companies cope with large quantities of water in high rainfall areas, but also how we can work with them to achieve greater connectivity with other water companies. If we see water flowing from area to area, it will benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituents through the bills that they pay and encourage water to go to the stressed areas of the south-east.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The microclimate in Suffolk Coastal is quite similar to that of north Africa, and farmers are used to using irrigation in producing crops. There are also big abstractors of both river and ground water. I welcome large parts of the White Paper, but I am a little worried by recommendations 3.39 and 3.43, which I am concerned will put farmers in my constituency out of food production.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the UK risks being left behind in its attempts to attract global investment in environmental technologies; agrees with the British Retail Consortium that the recent Waste Review is a disappointment; further agrees with the Nature Check report by 29 environmental charities that the Government has failed to deliver its environmental goals; condemns the Government’s 27 per cent. cut in flood defence investment from £354 million to £259 million a year; calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s five point plan for jobs and growth and bring forward spending on rural infrastructure projects for flood defences and rural broadband; further calls on the Government to raise the UK recycling target to 70 per cent. by 2025 to create an additional 50,000 jobs; and believes the Government should ensure mandatory carbon emissions reporting for all large UK companies to kick-start green jobs and growth.

May I begin by expressing Opposition Members’ regret that the Environment Secretary is unable to join us for the debate? I understand she is giving evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it is a very short walk from the Grimond room in Portcullis House to the Chamber and I hope that we have the opportunity to debate these issues with her at a future date. I would certainly look forward to that.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I have not even started yet.

[Dr Coffey]

My understanding is that the motion was tabled only last night, so the Government would have known only today that the attendance of the Secretary of State might be wanted, whereas her arrangements with the Select Committee were made some time ago.

[Mary Creagh]

It is at the Minister’s discretion whether she appears in the Chamber. She could have been informed this morning about an urgent question and would have had to appear before the House. The motion was tabled last night at about 5 o’clock, so she has had almost 24 hours to prepare her speech. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), has been beavering away on his remarks.

Let me start by taking the House back to 2006 and a fresh-faced Leader of the then Opposition visiting the Arctic circle. We all remember the Prime Minister hugging a husky, as well as “Vote blue, go green”. The Tory manifesto told us,

“That is why we have put green issues back at the heart of our politics and that is why they will be at the heart of our government.”

Several megatonnes of carbon dioxide and hot air were emitted by a variety of Conservative MPs confessing their green damascene conversion. In opposition, going green was an essential part of detoxifying the Tory brand, but in the 18 short months that the Government have been in power we have seen progress stall on the environment. As their disastrous economic policies take hold, with confidence failing, unemployment and inflation rising and growth flatlining, the green talk has not been matched by green action.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had a disastrous settlement in the comprehensive spending review—the second-biggest spending cut of any Department—taking £2 billion in cash out of the environment over the next four years. The Secretary of State was bounced into a disastrous plan to raise £100 million by selling England’s forests, and we await the review of the Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the parliamentary private secretary is distributing lines to take from the Government. It is always good to see the briefing machine in action. We hope the brief has been printed on Forest Stewardship Council paper.

The Government have abolished the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government’s watchdog on sustainable development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and vigorously to oppose this motion. I am delighted to see so many Opposition Back Benchers in the Chamber—three times more at its start than there were for the entire NHS debate. This is a welcome conversion, given that when elections to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee were held, not a single Labour Back Bencher put themselves forward for it until later rounds.

I want to focus on recycling. I pop up every now and again when Opposition Front Benchers talk about it, and it frustrates me, because we can have as much aspiration as we like. I would love to lose 7 stone, and I did once before, but it does not mean anything if I do not actually deliver. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to recycling rates, which rose from 11% at the start of her Government to 40%. Let us have some Top Trumps in our recycling rates. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is no longer in her place, introduced a private Member’s Bill. The recycling rate for her council is 16.8%. In Wakefield it is 39.1%. In Ogmore, which is split between two councils, it is 33.5% in Bridgend and 36.9% in Rhondda. They are all Labour councils. In Luton it is 35.8% and in East Lothian is it 35.4%. The figures get better when we move to the shadow Department of Energy and Climate Change team. In the shadow Secretary of State’s constituency the recycling rate is 27.5%, In the shadow Minister’s constituency in Liverpool, it is 25.4%. In South Lanarkshire it is 40.1%—[Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) asks whether there is a point to those figures. Yes, there is, because I am about to read out the recycling rates for Conservative-controlled councils, which actually deliver. The figures that I gave had in common the fact that they are mainly Labour-controlled, apart from one, which is a Scottish National party coalition.

The rate in my council in 2010 was 51.8%, which leapt to 60.7% in the following six months. In Waveney, which the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) will visit on Friday—I am sure he will have a nice time there—it is 53.2%, so perhaps he will learn about the three-bin scheme that has been introduced to ensure that there are weekly food collections. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford should be aware that she can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government fund to ensure that those collections continue.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Lady claims that Waveney is a Tory area. At the moment it has a Conservative MP, but it had a splendid Labour MP for the previous 14 years, and it currently has a hung council, which is effectively Labour-controlled.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. My point is that aspirational targets may be set by the Government, but councils deliver. Waveney was Conservative-controlled when making that change, and is still Conservative-controlled.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Ipswich, which until May was run by a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, achieved more in the five years of coalition control in raising recycling rates than during nearly 30 years before that when it was Labour-controlled.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. I will continue with the Top Trumps challenge, and turn to those on the Conservative Front Bench. In Solihull the recycling rate is 40.7%; in South Cambridgeshire it is 53.6%. West Berkshire has the lowest rate of the areas represented by the Department’s Ministers, but it is still 40.2%. In the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) it is 43.1%. I forgot to mention Edinburgh, East where the rate is 31.5%.

There is no point in a lot of hot air about aspirational targets if local councils do not deliver. We encourage our councils to get on with the programmes, to be innovative locally, and to ensure that they happen. Conservative Members are proud to go back to our councils and to talk about recycling rates of 60%, but on the other side of the Thames, where MPs are championing recycling, their councils are delivering very little.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend believe that the Labour party’s bin taxes would have encouraged recycling?

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a good point, and the answer is absolutely not. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) referred to nudge activity, but incentivising people to do the right thing has worked. The punitive measures proposed by the previous Government did not have that effect.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I would like the hon. Lady to put on record the fact that Edinburgh council has been run by a Liberal Democrat-Scottish National party coalition for the past four and a half years.

[Dr Coffey]

I said that there were SNP-Liberal Democrat coalitions, as is the case with East Lothian council.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke eloquently about rural broadband and ambitions. We all recall the 3G auction, when £22 billion was raised. If half of that had been used, we would have had fibre optics to every house in the country 10 years ago. That is the kind of ambition that we need, and will have, with this Government, who put their money where their mouth is with the £530 million to be spent within the next four years. The Minister may not have recalled that DEFRA also set aside a smaller, £20 million fund to enable communities, especially rural communities, to access broadband now and not necessarily wait until the 2015 target date.

Other Members have talked about the green investment bank and the capital cuts. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, the Labour Government did not commit specifically to a reduction in flood defence spending. However, Labour Members who were Members in the previous Parliament voted in the 2010 Budget for a 50% cut in capital spending. It is correct, as the hon. Gentleman said, that they had not specified where that cut would take place, but nor had they set out a comprehensive spending review. That lack of transparency is one of the reasons the previous Government were thrown out of office fairly decisively.

I have not yet mentioned my favourite topic—coastal erosion. I am delighted to say that since the Minister came to my constituency and pulled people together, local environment agencies, Natural England and communities have been working together to ensure that, with community contributions, we have funded coastal defences in Thorpeness and the scheme in Felixstowe, and we are now enjoying the benefits of that. I am very proud to be on the Government side of the House, and I will vote most strongly against the motion.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I want to focus on three aspects of the motion: the sell-off of forests, which, despite the Government’s U-turn and nice warm words, is still going ahead, including in my constituency; the Government’s nonsensical approach to waste; and the broken promises to communities up and down the country on flood defences.

My constituency, like that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), is a large rural constituency with many lowland and upland farms. It has two areas of outstanding natural beauty, and many acres of moorland and forest. What DEFRA does matters to people in my constituency, and so does what DEFRA does not do. In the countryside, we have had, in effect, 18 wasted months and a trail of broken promises. First, we had the proposal to sell off forests. Despite the Government’s U-turns and all the nice warm words that were said in this House, the Government are still planning to sell off 40,000 hectares of land over the next four years, some of it in my constituency. Ministers got away with it last time, but they will not do so this time. On Monday night, I listened to many impassioned speeches by Conservative Members saying, “I have to vote for this EU referendum because my constituents have been in touch with me and told me that I need to.” Their constituents got in touch with them in droves in response to the sell-off forests, and yet it is still happening.

I accept that the mess that now exists around waste is not really of DEFRA’s making, but lies at the door of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—a man who seems to be obsessed with little other than bin collections. The Government have failed to set ambitious targets for recycling in England, and—this is a capital offence—they have stopped Labour’s ban on wood going to landfill, saying that they will think about it again in 2012. Frankly, that is not good enough. I live in the former Derwentside district council area, which is now part of Durham county unitary authority, and we left weekly bin collections behind years ago. There was a lot of upset at the time—people do not like change—but if Durham county council tried to reintroduce weekly bin collections now, people would be incredibly unhappy.

I have three bins—one for waste; one for recycling, which gets emptied fortnightly; and one for garden waste, which is collected monthly—and guess what, I do not have rats and vermin skulking around my bins. My neighbours and I recycle everything we can, and we are proud of our recycling. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) gave us a long list of councils and their actual recycling levels as opposed to the targets. None of us in this House is responsible for that, but I am responsible for my own recycling and the waste that is produced in my house.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I understand that the hon. Lady and I cannot control the recycling rates of our councils, but it seems odd that people always complain to the Government when it is councils that deliver that service. My challenge is that we must encourage our councils to recycle as much as they can.

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree with that, but it ultimately comes down to us. I do not want weekly bin collections to be restored and nor do any of my neighbours. They are a waste of time and of our natural resources. There is virtually nothing in my waste bin; almost everything goes into the recycling bin. If I can do it, so can everybody else.

Marine Management Organisation

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention.

Richard Gates, the Falmouth town centre manager, has added his voice to the chorus of local residents opposing the plans, commenting:

“We live in a beautiful part of the country and certainly are very environmentally aware but this cannot be at the detriment of people’s livelihoods and leisure when many people are working so hard to develop the area”.

I am sure that Falmouth and, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has pointed out, other parts of Cornwall are not the only coastal communities that feel that the current recommended sites for marine protected areas are inappropriate because they fail to meet the fundamental aim of creating areas that strike the right balance between sustainable economic, social and environmental protection.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s description of her beautiful constituency could be substituted for mine, with Aldeburgh and the River Alde. Is it not the case that constituents feel that designations are being slapped on top of existing special protection areas simply because the data are available, rather than other parts of the coast being sought that could easily fulfil the criteria for marine conservation zones?

[Sarah Newton]

I am very grateful for those comments. My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I was going to make but now do not need to make. I think that issue is a real problem.

Perhaps it is not surprising that this has happened because the lead agencies tasked with drawing up the list of potential sites, the JNCC and Natural England, have as their primary purpose environmental protection and conservation. What is not part of their remit is what the Act clearly set out to achieve—balancing the social, economic and environmental needs of communities.

I appreciate that the Minister has inherited the current process and would not have designed one that led to the current situation, where there is so much genuine outrage and concern, but that is where we are today. It is a matter of great importance to coastal communities that measures are urgently taken to enable greater use of all the available evidence base by decision makers, rather than their relying almost entirely on Natural England and the JNCC. An open, transparent appeals process for both pre and post-designation decision making needs to be established urgently.

Given that the deadline for the establishment of the marine protected areas sites is 2012 and that the sites are being consulted on as we speak, I hope the Minister can reassure me that he will consider these recommendations so that the implementation of the very worthy aims of the Act command the respect of coastal communities. It is vital that people who might be adversely affected by the implementation of the Act are thoroughly involved, which they have not been so far. Making the new planning system work depends on building a consensus and support that can be achieved only if all concerned have confidence in the system that is used to reach conclusions. Sadly, that is very much missing at the moment. Politicians are elected to use their judgment and are democratically accountable. I hope that the Minister can reassure us tonight that he will exercise his judgment and democratic accountability to ensure that there is a common-sense approach to marine planning.