Natural Capital (England and Wales)
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I was lucky enough to be at the helm at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government published the first natural environment White Paper for 20 years. We had the lofty ambition—cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—of being the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we inherited. The significance of that challenge is not to be underestimated because it comes against the backdrop of an accelerating loss of species, with natural capital being lost at an ever-faster rate. The United Nations Environment Programme has calculated that for the UK, although overall wealth increased up to 2008, during the same period natural capital decreased by 30%. I invite Members to consider whether we want to go down in history as the generation that knowingly squandered the inheritance of future generations. I do not think so.
The Government had to decide what structures to bring in that would bring about change—that was the genesis of the natural capital committee under the inspired chairmanship of Professor Dieter Helm. That architecture in government is significant because the committee reports to the economic affairs committee, which is chaired by the Chancellor. That is important because it means that the natural capital debate is being hardwired into economic decision making.
It is stating the obvious to say that decisions will be better if the true value of what nature provides for free is factored in. I have always loved the example that if bees decided not to go to work for 12 months, it would cost our economy more than £400 million a year. That is not fanciful thinking, but based on real experience of what happened in China where, as a result of pesticide use, the pollinators died and fruit trees had to be hand pollinated by Chinese labourers. I invite Members to consider what the bill would be by comparison in this country. It is, however, a sombre fact that that has happened.
We are failing to conserve our natural capital assets, which is in stark contrast to the way we approach physical and financial assets. Such inconsistency comes at a high economic cost. Some of the natural capital that we have already lost is irreplaceable, but other parts can be regenerated. There are great opportunities for better management and stewardship of those natural assets, but that must be hardwired into the normal way we do business. Water companies have understood that rather than pouring chemicals into water to make it drinkable, simply paying farmers to keep the upland catchment clean can save money and the environment. Several water companies, including Yorkshire Water, South West Water and United Utilities, pursue the practice of paying for ecosystem services, and I expect other water companies to adopt the same practice.
Recognising the potential of business opportunities through better management of ecosystem services led to the establishment of an ecosystems markets taskforce, chaired by Ian Cheshire, chief executive of Kingfisher, which sets out to practise what it preaches in the marketplace. The taskforce identified important economic opportunities in bioenergy, local wood fuel, water cycle management, soft flood defences, better use of waste, and using nature to enhance resilience—all at their heart showing a better understanding of the importance of natural capital.
We all understand the importance of economic recovery in these austere times, but it is important that the return to growth is on a sustainable footing. A better understanding of how we use natural capital is essential to achieve that, so I agree with the natural capital committee that we need to develop a framework with which to define and measure natural capital. As the GLOBE initiative shows, that approach should be considered around the world as far as possible. I am not saying that every country should approach the matter in the same way, but legislators around the globe should recognise the importance of accounting for natural capital. It is salutary to recognise that some of the best practice does not come from the largest countries. Costa Rica is considering legislating on natural capital, and Peru has embedded natural capital in law. The work of GLOBE in showing legislators the approaches taken by other legislators is important.
By a happy coincidence, when we launched the natural environment White Paper, a new tool—the national ecosystem assessment—was developed with the help of no fewer than 200 scientists from around the globe. The assessment allows us to measure natural capital. In other words, as a result of that excellent scientific work, we can put a financial figure on what we previously thought was free. I would go so far as to say that, were such an assessment applied to the use of land in Europe, the common agricultural policy could be made far more efficient. There is certainly scope for that. We currently pay farmers for stewardship schemes at entry and higher level. If funds were directed to payments for ecosystem services, there would be a tangible benefit to the farmer, other ecosystem users, the taxpayer and nature. What a shame, therefore, that the 2013 CAP reform missed the opportunity to achieve that while claiming to promote greening.
Another major European policy—the water framework directive—could give a clear indication of the quality of the freshwater natural capital and its capacity to deliver ecosystems services, and not just as a part of those services. It is therefore in our interest to draw up that register of our natural capital assets and important that we understand which ones are most at risk, so we can prioritise our efforts to protect them. The committee’s report lists the wide range of those natural assets, from soil, water, air, carbon, energy and minerals, through to wild species habitats and landscapes. I therefore urge the Government to get on with overlaying those assets with a risk assessment and give us a time scale for achieving that.
Ash dieback is an example of a significant loss of natural capital through natural causes. However, in order to estimate the loss, we need to map the distribution of ash trees, their age, profile and susceptibility to the disease, and then calculate the negative value of the loss. That could include the loss of timber and of the amenity for recreation, as well as loss of carbon storage and the impact on other species. The second part of the exercise would be to calculate what it would cost to restore ash tree capital. Those are practical examples of what embedding natural capital in policy making could achieve.
That brings me to the important concept of offsetting for loss. The national planning policy framework says that the planning system should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment by
“minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity”.
One approach to compensation would involve the offsetting of losses, recognising the irreplaceability of some wild species and habitats. There is a significant opportunity to demonstrate that with the proposed high-speed railway. As there is an inevitable loss of green space to build the new line, it should be possible to create a significant offset for the loss of that natural capital. Not everything can be replaced. Ancient woodlands along the line of route will be lost for ever—more’s the pity—but new woodlands could be planted to buffer those at risk of being eroded and address the fragmentation of woodlands, which makes it difficult for species to migrate and sustain themselves. There could be a significant restoration of damaged natural capital. For example, we could restore the Tame valley, a polluted river valley on the east side of Birmingham that follows the spur of the new line into Birmingham city centre. Plans to deliver such natural capital regeneration have been drawn up by Arup, the engineers, and a professor of geography from Birmingham university—I commend them to my hon. Friend the Minister. Offsetting is a tool that could do a great deal to bring that vision about.
In conclusion, I strongly support the recommendations of the natural capital committee, in partnership with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness; the framework within which to define natural capital; the risk register we need; and embedding natural capital fully in the UK’s national accounts. In addition, I wonder whether we can reach across from the public to the private sector and develop guidance on best practice in natural capital accounting and improve the treatment of natural capital in cost-benefit analyses. We should also take up a recommendation of the ecosystem markets taskforce and explore how natural capital accounting could be included in guidance on strategic directors reporting under the Companies Act 2006. I hope the Government urgently explore offsetting and other forms of compensation to restore and replenish lost natural capital. Together, we need to nail the myth that preserving and enhancing natural capital is somehow incompatible with economic growth.
Oral Answers to Questions
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Benyon
The right hon. Gentleman is looking at marine conservation zones as if they are the only show in town. We have 42 special areas of conservation and 37 special protection areas around the English coast. About a quarter of our inshore waters are protected and we have more than 300 sites of special scientific interest in the intertidal zone. What we are trying to do with marine conservation zones is part of a much bigger picture of marine protection. We will be one of the leading countries in the world for marine conversation and the right hon. Gentleman should feel proud about that.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
8. What recent progress he has made on flood insurance; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
Last week, we announced a headline agreement with industry to guarantee affordable flood insurance for people in high-risk areas. The Association of British Insurers has assured Ministers that implementing Flood Re will have minimal impact on customers’ bills. We will be seeking the necessary powers in the Water Bill. Tackling flood risk will help to keep insurance terms affordable in the long term. We have announced record levels of capital investment of more than £2.3 billion for 2015-16 to 2020-21.
Mrs Spelman
I congratulate the Minister on securing that new deal for universal and affordable flood insurance, which eluded the last Labour Government and me. Will he actively encourage people who live in flood-prone areas to take up the capped premiums and not risk being uninsured?
Richard Benyon
My right hon. Friend should take a large slice of the credit for the deal that we have achieved. She worked hard to set in train something that the previous Government did not even look at, which is a successor to the statement of principles. I assure her that the key part of the deal is ensuring that we cap premiums, particularly for the most vulnerable, and, importantly, that we cap excess charges.
Badger Cull
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh
I am in touch with farmers all the time, and I have had a meeting with the National Farmers Union. I have met farmers in Derbyshire and, indeed, all over the country.
The wildlife trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust are all vaccinating badgers on their land. The Zoological Society of London and the wildlife trusts are pushing for volunteer involvement in badger vaccination, which would greatly reduce the costs. According to a report published today by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for which I pay tribute to the Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh):
“The vaccine has been available for 3 years but the government should now produce a clear strategy for using it.”
That is a pretty damning indictment of what the Government have been doing for the past three years. As a result of Labour’s investment, we now have a cattle TB vaccine and a DIVA test to differentiate infected and vaccinated cows.
The Select Committee report is critical of the Government’s approach to cattle vaccination. It says that the debate on cattle vaccination is unclear, and that
“the government must accept a great deal of the blame for this”.
It says:
“The quality and accuracy of the information that Defra has put into the public domain has been insufficient and inadequate.”
The Government have delayed field trials of the cattle vaccine after misinterpreting EU rules, and they must now undertake those trials as soon as possible.
I must make it clear, however, that neither a vaccine for badgers nor a vaccine for cattle will work on its own. We need a coherent policy framework to tackle all aspects of this complex disease. The Independent Scientific Group has suggested several key principles that could form the basis of such a framework. Page 175 of its report states that
“the movement of TB infected cattle...poses the greatest threat to the disease security of uninfected farms and particularly so in the case of farms in low disease risk areas”.
According to the report, cattle movements
“are also likely to make a significant contribution to the local spread of infection in high risk areas.”
Page after page of the report lists different control strategies for low-risk and high-risk areas, some of which were implemented by the last Government and some of which are now being adopted by the present Government.
We welcome, for instance, the risk-based trading strategy on which the Government have embarked. There must be transparency in the marketplace to prevent farmers from unknowingly importing infected cows into their herds. However, the Government have not investigated, for example, the 40% of farms in high-risk areas in the south-west that have consistently avoided bovine TB. What are those farmers doing to protect their farms? How are they trading, what is their biosecurity, and what are their husbandry practices? Can they be replicated? What can we learn? Until we get to the bottom of that, we will not find a solution.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
As I think the hon. Lady is beginning to make clearer, it is not a case of either vaccinating or culling. The Government have introduced a package of measures, including security measures. At the heart of the vaccination question, however, is the challenge of how to persuade 26 other European Union member states to import the meat from vaccinated cattle when there are questions to be answered about the efficacy of the BCG vaccine and the efficacy of the skin test.
Agricultural Wages Board
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh
I will give way later, but I would like to make some progress.
The Government’s own figures suggest that up to £280 million could be lost over 10 years in wages and in holiday and sick pay—a quarter of a billion pounds taken out of areas represented mainly by the parties on the Government Benches, where the cost of living is estimated to be approximately £3,000 more than for those living in urban areas. Up to £35 million a year could be lost in wages alone—again, those figures are taken from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment.
I want to know what happens when money is taken from rural families on the breadline. Who will pick up the tab? People with children will have recourse to income-related benefits, such as tax credits, council tax benefit and housing benefit. Reducing rural workers to the poverty line will take money out of workers’ pockets and transfer it directly to their employers. We, the taxpayer, will pick up the in-work welfare bill. That will add to the deficit. As a strategy for rural growth and deficit reduction, this thoughtless abolition will be catastrophic.
My second point is that the abolition will be bad for the food industry; it goes against business needs. Britain’s biggest manufacturing industry, the food production sector, needs more skilled workers. Instead, the Government are encouraging employers to race to the bottom on pay. That will see skilled workers turn their backs on the industry—and become MPs instead!
There are 2.5 million unemployed people in the United Kingdom, 1 million of whom are young people. There are 25 million unemployed people in the European Union, yet the horticulture industry still says that it needs to bring in workers under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme because it cannot find reliable British workers. It simply defies economic logic to suggest that a race to the bottom on pay is the way to attract the skilled new entrants that the industry needs.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady unaware or simply ignoring the fact that the AWB was debated at length during the consideration of the Public Bodies Bill in both Houses of Parliament? Secondly, is she aware of the impact assessment’s conclusion that current wage levels are generally above the minimum, and that, with wage-setting practices and modern working practices in agriculture, wages are unlikely to be eroded, as farmers will need to attract their workers? That was its conclusion.
Mary Creagh
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady refers to the AWB and the Public Bodies Bill, the so-called bonfire of the quangos. The Bill certainly brought her a degree of notoriety, as it contained her proposals to sell off the forests and scrap protection for farm workers. She mentions the impact assessment. I am just quoting the Government’s figures: their estimate is as high as £280 million over 10 years, or with a best estimate of £260 million.
Mary Creagh
Clearly, the national minimum wage does not cover it all, which is why it was not abolished under various previous Tory Governments. Various Conservative Prime Ministers understood that if someone’s house was provided by their employer, they were in a uniquely vulnerable position when it came to negotiating their wages.
Many small farmers want to keep the AWB so that they do not have to become employment specialists. They want to get on with running their business. Instead, this change will add to their regulatory burden. The Farmers’ Union of Wales, where 12,000 workers are covered by the AWB, opposes abolition. It has said:
“Many farms in Wales run with relatively few staff, or indeed with family labour. The Agricultural Wages Board is considered an important means of avoiding potential conflict and lengthy negotiations with individual members of staff.”
Without the AWB, each farm business owner will have to negotiate terms and conditions annually with its work force. They will make mistakes, as employers sometimes do, and might end up in employment tribunals as a result.
I want to quote again from one of the consultation responses. A farmer in Kings Lynn said:
“I disagree strongly with the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board...the last thing I want to do with my limited management time is to negotiate wages with my 6 full-time and up to 30 part-time workers some of whom have worked for me for 30 to 40 years and have a strong personal relationship with me. I do not want to damage this by having to negotiate wages with them.”
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) asked why farming was different. I think that that answers his question.
We have talked about gangmasters and licensing and, before I conclude, I want to touch briefly on the issue of workers’ accommodation. The Government’s impact assessment indicates that 25,500 farm workers have a house or cottage provided by their employer, and that another 4,700 live in other accommodation, such as caravans. The agricultural wages order defines “other” accommodation and guarantees all farm workers that it is fit for human habitation, safe and secure, and that every worker should have a bed for their sole use and be provided with suitable and sufficient free drinking water and sanitation.
Abolishing the AWB will remove those guarantees on housing for farm workers. The accommodation will no longer have to be fit for human habitation, safe or secure. Workers will not be guaranteed a bed for their sole use, and there will be no requirement to provide drinking water or sanitation. I should like to cite the case of one of the firms that wrote in support of the AWB’s abolition, Suffolk Mushrooms. Last year, the firm was fined £10,000 for failing to have a safety certificate for the boiler in the men’s accommodation, and for various hazardous working practices that put workers’ lives at risk, including leaving high-level safety gates open. After the case was won, the Health and Safety Executive inspector, John Claxton, said:
“Suffolk Mushrooms invested more than £1.5 million refurbishing its factory and mushroom growing equipment, yet failed to spend even a few hundred pounds to keep its employees safe”.
Mrs Spelman
Obviously the laws already exist to enable the Health and Safety Executive to fine employers, in every sector of the economy, when they break the law. Does the hon. Lady not accept that she is perpetrating the myth that farmers set out to exploit their workers? The vast majority of farmers listening to the debate today would be affronted by that suggestion.
Mary Creagh
That was a good effort from the right hon. Lady. The HSE will clearly continue to exist, but I am citing a case that happened last year, not at some other point in time. I ask her whether she thinks that conditions will get worse or better when the AWB is abolished.
Oral Answers to Questions
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) should preserve his melodic tones for when he is on his feet, rather than in his seat.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
The coalition Government have brought a welcome fresh impetus to rural economic growth, but skills shortages are still a problem. Will the Secretary of State share with the House the benefits that the skills and knowledge framework fund of £20 million could bring?
Mr Paterson
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back in her seat and now released to ask pertinent questions, such as the one she just asked. She makes a key point—that we will not grow the rural economy if we do not have suitably trained and skilled young people, and the measure she mentioned is vital in developing the right taskforce for the right jobs.
Ash Dieback Disease
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Freeman
I stand corrected if I said “prevailing”. There are frequently winds from the east and the north-east and, as the map demonstrates, it is perfectly possible that the disease could have been carried over from mainland Europe.
The scientific research into resistance offers us an important opportunity to identify genetic markers and traits that would allow us to establish a breeding stock of clean, new ash strains, and to unlock as much funding as possible from the European budget to support UK leadership in that field. This is an opportunity for us to promote British plant and forestry science in the context of the European market. I should like to make a small plea to the Minister on behalf of Norfolk. It is perhaps the worst-affected county. It is also home to the John Innes Institute and the Norwich research park, and if there is any scientific work to be done in this regard, I should like us to be at the front of the queue. Our county has a lot to offer.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of these matters, and I am sure he is aware that where the disease has been established for longer, there is a greater chance of finding resistant varieties. The Poles believe that they might have some resistant varieties, but there is now great disappointment in continental Europe because it was thought that we might have resistant varieties because there was no incidence of the disease here.
George Freeman
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister will pick up on her extremely well-made point.
In the context of biosecurity in the UK, this is a wake-up call for us all. For far too long, we have not taken our biosecurity seriously enough. Over the past 15 years, we have seen a significant—and generally all to the good—globalisation of trade in commodities and products. We have also seen substantial climate change.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I do not believe the response to this disease will be improved by playing a blame game or by a partisan approach. The seriousness with which Members of all parties take this issue is evidence of how determined we are to tackle it.
It is to the credit of the Secretary of State, who cannot be with us today, that he has acknowledged that his predecessors acted on the advice they received at the time—essentially the same advice as was outlined by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) who speaks for the Opposition—that ash dieback was listed as being absent from the country. When I came into office, the list of serious exotic diseases brought to my attention included sudden oak death syndrome, bleeding canker in chestnuts, red band needle blight, oak processionary moth, as well as Phytophthora ramorum, which has meant that hundreds of thousands of larches have already been felled.
My response was to produce a tree action plan on tree health and biosecurity—so the fightback has started. In the elaboration of this plan, tree experts provided a horizon scan of upcoming diseases, which we could build into our decision making. Members who return to this country from a third world country will have heard the DEFRA announcement on planes, which warns travellers not to import plant material into this country. That is just one of the improved biosecurity measures.
I have heard the argument that the cuts are to blame for the proliferation of ash dieback. I think we have now satisfactorily demonstrated that an extra £8 million was spent—on top of the protected budget for tree health research. I warn the Opposition to be careful with the argument that it is all about money, because no amount of money will stop wind blowing from continental Europe bearing diseases in this direction. That is just a fact.
The importing of ash is a paradox. Growers were supposed to have asked my predecessor, and challenged the Government, to introduce a ban. What I fail to understand is why, if they saw that as a risk, they continued to import the ash. I did not see that letter either.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I want to avoid misunderstanding. The Horticultural Trades Association wrote to the Forestry Commission in autumn 2009. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) made clear in her speech, I asked DEFRA to check whether I had seen the correspondence, and I had not.
Mrs Spelman
I think that clarity is helpful. I had not seen it either.
The crux of the problem is misdiagnosis. Ministers do not have microscopes on their desks, so before we single out some hapless scientist in forestry research for blame, we should consider carefully how many other people failed to spot the problem as well. When the first case of the new ash fungus was confirmed, trees were felled as a precautionary measure, and a voluntary ban was put in place straight away, so there was no delay. The key to tackling this disease, as was argued earlier, is to find the resistant varieties.
Going forward, the EU plant health regime needs reform. Former and present Members of the European Parliament can perhaps help us with that. We stand some chance, as islands, of being able to have better biosecurity, and we need to fight for that now. In parallel with the EU review, the Government updated their own plant health strategy, deploying more inspectors at points of entry to our country to control imports and piloting new tools of detection. Passenger baggage conditions were reviewed; more funding was released for inspection at growing sites; and better co-ordination of research between the Food and Environment Research Association and the Forestry Commission was achieved. Common sense should tell us that, if tree experts, dedicated woodmen and woodland charities all failed to spot its presence earlier, this disease must be hard to diagnose. It is not helped by the fact that there are other forms of ash dieback, and that other tree diseases were listed ahead of ash dieback as priorities.
If ash dieback had been seen as the big threat we now believe it to be, all relevant stakeholders would have signalled that to me in the numerous face-to-face meetings I had with them during consultations on the public forest estate, or on the extreme weather conditions we experienced in 2011 and 2012. Meetings with the chairman of the Forestry Commission did not have this item on the agenda.
Mrs Spelman
I am not going to give way again. Moreover, one might have expected the trade press to have expressed its concern on the front pages of its publications.
We all need to share some responsibility and to redouble our efforts to spot the disease. I applaud the volunteers who have helped with the unprecedented survey of our woods and trees. As my action plan stated, collaborative working—of landowners, industry, academia, civil society and Government—is required better to protect the health of our nation’s trees. We need to pull together, not against each other, in the fight for tree health.
Mr Deputy Speaker
There are 10 minutes left. Perhaps three and a bit minutes each, and then everybody will get in.
Flooding
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Over recent weeks we have seen exceptional amounts of rainfall, culminating in the flooding seen in June and most recently over the past couple of weeks. The period from April to June has been the wettest on record and the Government and other agencies have mounted a co-ordinated response in the face of this unseasonal weather.
Earlier in July, areas of south and east Devon received the average rainfall for the whole of July in only 18 hours, with up to 50 mm recorded. Recent flooding has been exacerbated by the wet ground conditions from the exceptionally wet weather through June.
We estimate the number of properties affected in England to be at least 3,000, but as final numbers are collated across the impacted areas this could rise to 4,000. Our sympathies are with all those who have suffered flooding, especially those in the worst affected areas including Crawshawbooth, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Dorset. The Environment Agency estimates that 80 properties were flooded over the weekend in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Shropshire. I know that local communities are pulling together as the recovery operation begins in earnest, and I hope that all will be able to return to their homes as soon as possible.
The Government have activated the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance to help local authorities affected by the recent floods with the immediate costs associated with protecting life and property in their areas. Exceptionally, the scheme will reimburse local authorities for 100% of their eligible costs above threshold, instead of the standard 85% as stated in the Bellwin scheme guidance. This is in recognition of the particular circumstances around these floods and will give the affected local authorities assurance that such costs will be reimbursed.
Protecting our communities against flooding is a vital area of the work of Government, and I am pleased to say that during the events in June and July to date, the Environment Agency estimates that at least 37,000 properties in England have been protected which would otherwise have flooded, through a combination of flood defences, maintenance work, storage basins and temporary defence measures. An example of the benefit of recently completed flood defences is Carlisle—devastatingly flooded in 2005—which has now been saved twice from serious flooding since the defences were built. In addition, flood warnings have been issued to over 167,000 properties.
In our changing climate, we will never be able to completely prevent flooding as we have seen this past fortnight, and also In June. However, through the excellent preparations and work of front-line responders, including the police, fire service, local authorities and the Environment Agency, and the investment being made by Government, we are better prepared for flooding than ever before.
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) who is responsible for the natural environment and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) will be giving a technical briefing for MPs from relevant affected constituencies this afternoon.
With the immediate outlook continuing unsettled, further flooding is a possibility and the Government and relevant agencies remain vigilant. People should continue to be alert to forecasts and warnings, and be prepared to respond if required.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 16 July in Brussels and the first under the Cypriot presidency. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) who is responsible for agriculture and food will represent the UK. Stewart Stevenson MSP will also attend.
The main items on 16 July will be proposals and debates on the rural development, specifically risk management measures, and the single common organisation of the markets sections of the Commission Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
There will also be a Commission presentation and exchange of views regarding a consultation on fishing opportunities for 2013.
The document is a consultation on the Commission’s intended approach this year for the process of setting total allowable catches and effort levels for the EU fleet in 2013, in accordance with the EU common fisheries policy. The Commission is consulting on their intentions for this process with member states, Regional Advisory Councils and the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture.
There are currently six any other business points confirmed:
An update from the Commission on the situation in the dairy sector;
Co-operation with China in the agri-food sector;
Mackerel;
The CAP paying agencies conference;
Fires in Spain;
Situation report on the dairy market;
A request for the re-introduction of export refunds for dairy products;
Animal welfare (Transport).
Managing the Impacts of Flooding
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
In 2008 it was agreed that the current statement of principles on the provision of flood insurance between the Government and insurers would not be renewed following its expiry in June 2013.
In order to make sure that insurance for homes at risk of flooding remains widely available and affordable, work is underway to establish a successor arrangement to the statement of principles. Recent events have once again underlined the importance of safeguarding the widespread uptake of affordable insurance.
The central objective of this work is to reach an agreement with insurers whereby insurance bills remain affordable without placing unsustainable costs on wider policyholders and the taxpayer. There is the potential to deliver a new approach that is a step change better than the current statement of principles, by for the first time directly addressing the affordability of flood insurance.
This is a complex issue, as insurers themselves recognise, and we have undertaken to work with the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to look at ways of providing safeguards. A number of proposals have come forward from the industry and we are continuing to consider a range of options.
These discussions have made significant progress. The Government are considering with the industry’s support a way of formalising existing pricing arrangements and maintaining the current cross-subsidy in place between policyholders. This would be by means of an internal industry levy, as proposed by insurers themselves. By reflecting existing arrangements, the levy would avoid increasing costs for those not at risk whilst helping households to continue to afford insurance in flood risk areas.
This work is taking place against a backdrop of significant advances in flood risk mapping and forecasting which in turn is giving insurers the ability to more accurately ascribe the level of flood risk to individual properties.
As this knowledge base expands it will bring considerable benefits, not least in terms of helping Government, local authorities, households and businesses plan for and mitigate the risk of flooding. Investment by all in preventing flood damages from occurring will remain the best and most sustainable way of achieving affordable insurance over the long term.
The Government and insurers are determined to see insurance premiums remain affordable and widely available, particularly in light of the pressure household budgets are currently under and the pattern of flood events we have seen over recent years.
The priority is now to resolve detailed design issues including how support would be targeted. We are looking to develop with insurers a model that delivers benefits to households in need of support whilst avoiding poorer policyholders subsidising wealthier ones. We are looking for an approach which also encourages individuals and communities to consider the actions they can take to keep future premiums down.
This measure would be intended to facilitate a gradual change in the market but would still mark a step change in Government’s role in the management of flood risk. As such any proposal will require detailed scrutiny before it could be introduced.
Meanwhile, this Government are continuing to fulfil their role in reducing flood risk by spending more than £2.17 billion on flood and coastal erosion risk management in England over the current four-year spending period. Sixty new schemes are moving into construction this year under our new partnership approach to funding which has already brought forward £72 million in additional investment from other sources. We expect that the benefits of our investment in risk management will be reflected in reduced insurance premiums going forward.
The recently published national planning policy framework fulfils the Government’s commitment to avoid unnecessary building in floodplains and this outcome has been welcomed by the ABI and others. We are helping insurers incorporate the protection afforded by property-level protection measures into their pricing models and, with the industry’s help, are publishing a guide to help households find the best means of accessing insurance in flood risk areas. We are also working with local authorities and other partners to look at the extent to which communities, through acting together, can help to manage the costs of flood insurance.
Intensive discussions with the insurance industry are continuing and we will announce further details in due course. I undertake to update the House at the most appropriate points.
Draft Water Bill
Caroline Spelman Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I am publishing today a draft Water Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill includes measures to strengthen the water sector’s ability to respond to the challenges of a growing population and less certain water supplies, and improve the deal it offers to its customers by offering more choice, and driving efficiency and innovation. These build upon the vision we set out in the water White Paper, “Water for Life”, for a resilient, affordable and sustainable water supply.
At the heart of our Water Bill are measures to give businesses and other non-household customers in England more choice by enabling them to switch their water and sewerage suppliers and to remove some of the existing regulatory requirements that act as a barrier to entrants wishing to enter the market.
A combination of greater pressure on suppliers from customers entitled to switch and new players will create a more vibrant and competitive market, bring new ways of working to the water sector, improve customer service and help keep the cost of bills down.
The Water Bill will also aid the development of a cross-border retail market for water and sewerage services by reducing burdens for operators that wish to supply services both in Scotland and in England and to eligible water supply customers in Wales. We want to see the market develop so that water suppliers on both sides of the border can work with their businesses and public sector customers to manage their water and sewerage services in the same way that they manage other utilities, increasing choice, providing tailored services, improving efficiency and cutting costs.
Measures in the Bill will further stimulate a market for wholesale water supply services by introducing a more flexible upstream pricing regime, and by allowing new opportunities in the upstream supply sector for new entrants to offer alternative supplies and services on behalf of customers and to other water supply licensees. These reforms will be mirrored in an extension of the licensing regime to sewerage services. This will help unlock new supplies of water and diversify methods of dealing with sewage.
To help these markets run more effectively we will allow Ofwat, other regulators and market participants to establish flexible charging rules and market codes. These changes will help facilitate new transfers of water between water companies—increasing flexibility and resilience in the water supply network, and make the cost of connecting to the water and sewerage networks more transparent for developers.
The Bill will also reform the special merger regime for the water sector to exclude more mergers from automatic referral to the Competition Commission by introducing a two-tier referral system.
In addition to reforming the water supply and sewerage markets, the Water Bill will enable the extension of the scope of the environmental permitting regime from prevention of pollution to include abstraction and impounding licences, flood defence consents and fish pass approvals. This will allow businesses to apply for just one permit covering these and a range of other activities, reducing red tape.
I am confident that measures contained in this Water Bill will increase choice for business customers and public sector bodies, drive innovation, improve customer service, keep bills down, make more flexible use of our water resources to improve resilience to drought over the long term and help secure future investment.
I am inviting the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee to scrutinise this draft Bill over the coming months.
Copies of the draft Bill and associated documents will be available in the Vote Office. The documents will also be available on the DEFRA website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/qualitv/water/legislation/water/