Badger Cull

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

We have heard a range of passionate and fairly well-informed contributions to this debate on a very difficult subject. I was pleased to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and I look forward to the Committee’s report.

Today’s debate certainly forced all of us to view the issue at a much deeper level. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) spoke of the weaknesses in on-farm biosecurity. We heard passionate speeches from the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). They all spoke about the devastating impact of the disease on farmers.

We heard alternative views from my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who spoke of the risk that bovine TB would spread in the short term as a result of a badger cull. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) criticised the design of the Government’s cull. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a thoughtful speech from an international perspective, drawing attention to the costs of the cull. The hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Southend West (Mr Amess) suggested other options, as did the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who gently punctured some of the Secretary of State’s claims to expertise in this matter.

We were privileged to hear from former Agriculture Ministers, including the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is in his place, also struggled with these issues when he was in government, and my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) described what happened under the Labour Government. It is important to put on the record that so far only a Labour Government have actually carried out a badger cull and tested the science in the field. I strongly predict that we will remain the only Government to carry out a badger cull in the field. I will explain why I make that prediction shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) coined a new word: the ineptocracy, which will be on the record in Hansard. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) described the heartache of farmers, and the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) talked about the effect of perturbation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate and on making sure such a wide range of perspectives was expressed. The existence of this motion and debate—and vote—have certainly contributed to the Government’s decision to drop the badger cull. The Opposition have warned the Government for two years that the cull would be bad for farmers, taxpayers and wildlife. It would be bad for farmers who have to deal with this terrible disease. I also know the toll the disease takes on farmers and their families, both personally and financially, but the Government’s own cost-benefit assessment said the cull would cost farmers more than it would save them.

We saw in the last six weeks that farmers were moving away from the free shooting of badgers and moving towards the cage trapping of badgers, yet the Government’s statistics show free shooting is 10 times cheaper than cage trapping. Will the Minister tell us the true costs of this to the farmers? I would also like to hear from the Minister about the size of bond that the two farm companies had lodged with Natural England. So far we have heard no mention from Ministers about how much farmers are required to pay up front to cover the full four-year costs of this cull. If there is a move to cage trapping and shooting, what training has been given to those responsible for carrying that out, because that is a different skill from free shooting? We know that the people involved in free shooting had to go on a badger anatomy course so as to get a clean kill when shooting badgers. Pistols are used for cage trapping and shooting, so that is a totally different technique. Will the Minister tell us whether that training has been given, because it certainly seems from the evidence on the ground that that was what was planned?

There has been a lot of talk in this debate about the science, and we heard a good exposition from the hon. Member for St Ives. It is important that we go back to John Krebs. I do not advocate that we go back to 1997 as the Secretary of State does. I am disappointed that he is not in his place, and I am disappointed about his earlier remark in the House that he “couldn’t take any more.” He has only been in the job six weeks. I have been studying the issue of the badger cull for 18 months—as have other hon. Members, along with farmers out there in the community who are living with this problem—and I think the Secretary of State will have to show a little more backbone.

Professor Lord John Krebs instigated the randomised badger culling trial, and took part in the review of the evidence with Sir Bob Watson last year. Lord Krebs stressed the fact that culling badgers makes TB worse at the beginning by spreading the disease. He stated clearly in the Lords on Tuesday that the badger cull would reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by 16% after nine years, leaving 84% of the problem still there. He said that

“this is not a reduction in absolute terms but actually a 16% reduction from the trend increase.”

In other words, as the background trend is going up, BTB still increases but not by as much as it would have done had the cull not been conducted. This cull is not the silver bullet the Secretary of State makes it out to be. The eminent zoologist Lord John Krebs continues:

“The number is not the 30% that the NFU quoted; that is misleading—a dishonest filleting of the data.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148.]

Disappointingly, it appears, judging by his response to the debate in this morning’s DEFRA questions, that the Secretary of State has not read the Hansard record of that Lords debate, where the scientists were sitting there. He persisted in misusing a snapshot figure—the 28%—instead of using the one figure that the scientists are agreed on, which is the 16% figure. The Minister is looking puzzled. I hope that he is still not confused, because he is going to get a lambasting from the scientists. The Government are cherry-picking the data. Perturbation increases bovine TB, in the perimeter areas, by 29%, but I have chosen not to use that figure in any of the rhetoric or debate on this matter because it represents a snapshot; those perturbation increases happen in the early stages and are not borne out by the reduction that occurs afterwards.

The Secretary of State is not in his place, but he referred to Christl Donnelly as a “he” during his statement on Tuesday—Christl is a she.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)]

She is a she.

[Mary Creagh]

Well, that is a relief. I do not know why the Minister has not told the Secretary of State that, because he is reported in Hansard as saying that she is a he. [Interruption.] He appears not to have read his own Hansard record or corrected it. He obviously has not spoken to the scientists, who faced down the animal rights activists during Labour’s badger cull in order to carry out the Labour Government’s research into culling badgers. We are not talking about some animal rights activists; these are scientists in the field wanting to get the right outcome for farmers and for the nation.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s comparing the research on a vaccine to Sisyphus, who, as you doubtless know, Mr Speaker, rolled a rock up a hill only to watch it roll down again for all eternity, demonstrates not only a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method, but contempt for scientific research? We can have no confidence in the promotion of a vaccine under the Secretary of State’s leadership.

[Mary Creagh]

The Secretary of State got his Sisyphus mixed up with his Tantalus. I think he will find that he has undertaken the labours of Hercules in DEFRA—I will not go any further on that, but the Augean stables spring to mind. I agree with what my hon. Friend said, because I am concerned that the scientists are being ripped to pieces on this, and the situation is difficult. She rightly says that there is a scientific method: the scientists are paid to come up with solutions, and then we try to roll them out and test them in field conditions. That is what needs to be done.

I have asked a lot of parliamentary questions. The Secretary of State asked 600, but perhaps some of his data are less than fresh. My data are pretty fresh. Last year, I asked the Government how many cattle herds breakdowns would be prevented over nine years if the cull went ahead. The answer came back that using a 150 km area, 47 cattle breakdowns would be prevented over nine years. So if we double the cull area and if it was to go ahead in a 300 sq km area, 94 herd breakdowns would be prevented. That, again, is not a fantastic result for the huge investment involved in this cull.

There has been huge concern from the scientists about the lack of Government rigour in the design, implementation, monitoring and efficacy of these culls. We know that there would be no post-mortem testing of whether the badgers had bovine TB, but there would be post-mortem testing to see whether they had been shot cleanly. So those who are interested in science, and who want to know how much of a vector in this disease the badgers are, will again have to go back to Labour’s cull, which showed that only 12% of the animals actually carried the disease.

[Sir James Paice]

I want to challenge the hon. Lady again on these figures. I did not dispute, in my speech, the 16% figure, and I do not believe anyone else has done. That is the figure agreed by all the scientists. I want her to confirm that that 16% is the net overall figure, and that if we could reduce or even eliminate perturbation, the net figure is bound to be much higher than that. That is part of the objective in the design of these pilots.

[Mary Creagh]

The scientists gave a range of between 12% and 16% if the cull was carried out under exactly the same conditions as Labour’s RBCT. The cull that the right hon. Gentleman proposed differed significantly, as it would have taken place over six weeks rather than two and would have involved free shooting rather than cage-trapping and shooting. As any GCSE science student knows, as soon as we depart from the methodology, we immediately increase the range of the differentials in the results. That is why the scientists were concerned.

The lack of rigour in the methodology was shown in Tuesday’s announcement. A cull that depends on killing at least 70% of the animals was about to begin with no reliable estimate of how many needed to be shot. On 19 July 2011, I asked a question in Parliament on that exact point, because it had occurred to me, a mere humble member of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I received the answer

“there is no precise knowledge of the size of the badger population”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 815.]

That prompts the question of why Ministers did not ask that. Why did they not start the count then so that farmers could plan properly? Instead, they allowed the farmers to submit their own estimates of the numbers, thought, “Mm, that looks a bit low,” and left it until September to go out into the field and conduct the analysis that should have been done a year ago. I want Ministers to tell us whether those numbers were calibrated to test their accuracy. It seems clear to me that they were not.

[Fiona Bruce]

rose—

[Mary Creagh]

I will not give way, because I want to hear some answers from the Minister.

We also warned that the cull would be bad for taxpayers. What are the taxpayer costs so far? A freedom of information request to the Badger Trust reveals the cost of the big society badger cull. To date, licensing activities by Natural England have cost £300,000. The sett monitoring that only took place right at the very end of the process in September has cost £750,000. The independent expert panel that is meeting to oversee the two pilots has cost £17,000. Since April 2012, there have been 6.5 full-time equivalent staff working on the cull. This cull, which I confidently predict will not take place, has already cost taxpayers well over £1 million. We can add on £500,000 per cull area per year for policing. Let us not forget that all leave has been cancelled for the police in Gloucestershire until Christmas. Although I am sure they will be relieved to have their leave uncancelled, how much has that cost the police? Again, the Secretary of State said on Tuesday that he would write to let us know

What about the future costs? Humaneness monitoring will cost £700,000. Badger post-mortems will cost £248,000. My parliamentary question to Ministers, however, about the net reduction in compensation and testing were the badger cull to go ahead received the answer that it would save just £2.9 million over 10 years in each cull area. That is just not good enough. It will carry on costing taxpayers until Ministers cancel it definitively.

The writing is on the wall for this badger cull. The costs to farmers and taxpayers will continue to stack up if Ministers continue to pretend that the cull will go ahead. We need to ensure that any solution works closely with farmers and I hope for their sake that the Minister will drop this charade that the cull will go ahead. Any solution will also require the consent of taxpayers and we must ensure that we get the best value for them, too.

--- Later in debate ---

That this House notes the e-petition on the planned badger cull, which has gathered more than 150,000 signatures; and calls on the Government to stop the cull and implement the more sustainable and humane solution of both a vaccination programme for badgers and cattle, along with improved testing and biosecurity.

[Mary Creagh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May we have an indication from the Minister that the Government will go back and look again at the whole policy of the badger cull, and respect the democratic voice of this Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her point with force and alacrity and, as she will know, it is on the record of the House. As she will also know, that is not a matter for the Chair; it is not a point of order although it will have been heard by the Minister on the Treasury Bench.

I call Mr Mark Pritchard on a point of order—I hope it is a point of order.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his post and thank him for advance sight of his statement.

Another day, another U-turn, announced first to the “Today” programme and now to Parliament. Labour has warned the Government for two years that the badger cull was bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife. In addition, the Government’s handling of the cull has been incompetent and shambolic. It is right that it has been delayed, but we were not alone. Lord Professor John Krebs, the eminent scientist who first suggested that the culling of badgers be tried to tackle bovine TB, described it as a “crazy scheme”. The Government’s own chief scientist, Professor Sir John Beddington, declined to endorse the policy. The free shooting of badgers in some big society badger cull was always a terrible idea. It had never been tried, never measured.Professor John Bourne, who led Labour’s badger cull trials, called it an “untested and risky approach”.

The cull would cost farmers more than it saved them, put huge strain on the police and spread bovine TB in the short term as badgers move out of cull areas. It would cost half a million pounds a year to police per area, and all for a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years. Bovine TB is a terrible disease for farmers, their families and their communities, which is why we, when in government—[Interruption.] That is why we ran the cull trials to see whether culling made a difference—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is too much noise coming from both sides of the House. Mr Kawczynski, I have had reason to indicate this to you before, but you must calm down. I think that you need to go on an anger management course, man. [Interruption.] Order. Get a grip.

[Mary Creagh]

Bovine TB is a terrible disease, but the Secretary of State’s cull was never going to be a silver bullet. Then, last Thursday, we saw the first signs that the badger cull was shaping up to be another Government disaster. As Ministers went to ground, the Secretary of State’s own press office told “Channel 4 News” that the policy was being scrapped, but an hour later they rang back—it was unscrapped. To have to announce one U-turn may be regarded as misfortune, but two U-turns in one afternoon looks like carelessness, even for a Government as weak and incompetent as this one.

What was the reason for the wobble? I had asked some parliamentary questions, and Ministers’ answers revealed some awkward facts. My first basic question was how many badgers there were in each cull area. The answer was that the Government

“have yet to issue definitive target figures for the two areas”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 296W.]

The cull is predicated on killing at least 70% of badgers in an area. How could it proceed when Ministers did not know how many animals there were? We had said all along that the cull was a shot in the dark, and here was the proof. It was that admission, two days before the cull was due to start, that meant DEFRA was wide open to a judicial review for being in breach of the law. The Government’s own best estimate of badger numbers was far higher than previously estimated, making both culls more expensive than forecast. That would mean more expense for farmers and increasing the contingency fund, the bond that farmers are required to lodge with Natural England. Why did Ministers not ask how many badgers farmers needed to kill before this whole fiasco started?

What sort of announcement is the Minister making today? Is it like the forests U-turn, when they pulled the plug and then set up an independent panel to kick it into the long grass forever, leaving just enough cover to save the Prime Minister face; or is it like the infamous Health and Social Care Bill, when the Prime Minister pressed the stop button, waited for things to calm down and then carried on regardless? Is this delay a proper U-turn or a pretend U-turn? I think that the country deserves to be told.

We welcome the tougher measures on biosecurity that the Secretary of State announced last Friday. He says the cull will start again next summer. He has blamed the weather and the police, yet his own colleague the Home Secretary said that the cull must not go ahead during the Olympics and Paralympics. What happens if the weather is bad next year? What estimate has he made of the impact on the tourism industry of a cull next June? Does he expect MPs and the public to believe him when he says that the cull will happen next summer? If it does not take place, is there not a risk that his Department will be pursued for costs by farmers left out of pocket as a result of his incompetence? Is not the truth that the Prime Minister yanked him back from his festival of fromage and fizz in Paris last night and told him it was game over? Who exactly is in charge?

After months of agonising, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money having been spent on consultations, counting badgers, training marksmen and issuing licences, and after thousands have been spent by farmers setting up companies, we have had another U-turn from this incompetent Government. They have spent two years puffing life into a policy that should never have left the ministerial red box. After just six weeks in his post, the Secretary of State has discovered that DEFRA is filled with elephant traps for the unwary. With forests, circus animals and now the badger cull, he has completed a hat trick unmatched by any other Department.

Labour has always said that the badger cull was bad for taxpayers, bad for farmers, and bad for wildlife. This Government are out of touch with the nation. This cull should have been stopped months ago. Today we have the right decision for all the wrong reasons. The cull has been stopped because of the Government’s endemic incompetence. They should have listened to the scientists, the charities and Labour Members, and made policy based on the evidence instead of twisting the evidence to fit their policy. Once again, Ministers present the House with a disaster entirely of their own making. Once again, it is farmers and taxpayers who are left counting the cost.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words in welcoming me to my place, but it was pretty thin stuff, wasn’t it, Mr Speaker?

Let us start with Professor Lord Krebs, whom the hon. Lady quoted. He confirmed the policy when he said in April last year at a meeting of independent scientific experts:

“The science base generated from the…Randomised Badger Culling Trial shows that proactive badger culling as conducted in the trial resulted in an overall beneficial effect compared with ‘survey only’ (no cull) areas on reducing new confirmed cattle herd breakdowns which is still in evidence 5½ years after the final annual proactive cull.”

The hon. Lady then touched on the comments of the chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, but failed to say that his recent quote in full is this:

“The proposed pilot culls differ from the RBCT in a number of ways. Additional biosecurity aimed at reducing perturbation effects, any predictions as to the efficacy of the culls will be accompanied by uncertainties. However, if the results were similar to those of the RBCT we might expect a 12 to 16% reduction in bovine TB over an area of 150 km sq after nine years relative to a similar unculled area. It will be important to monitor the results and to subject them to rigorous statistical analysis to assess humaneness, safety and efficacy.”

That is exactly what the pilots were for: they were the logical conclusion—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I do not know the detail of that case, so I do not know whether the planning permission was granted by the council before or after the planning reforms were made. As I have said, putting sustainable development at the heart of the planning system means that greater consideration is given to sustainability in flood-prone areas. A number of things can be done to improve sustainability in flood-prone areas but, without knowing the specifics of the case, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I am very disappointed at the party political nature of the right hon. Lady’s comments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) behaved admirably after the 2007 and 2009 floods, not least through the flood recovery grant. We are still waiting to hear from the right hon. Lady whether any money will go to the people who have been left homeless and destitute by the recent floods. She lit the fuse on the expiry of the statement of principles by cutting flood defence spending by 27%. She uses the figure of a 7% cut—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are short of time, so we must now have a single-sentence question.

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Lady promised an update on flood insurance in the spring. She has talked about vouchers and now she is finally talking about insurance. Will she get a deal with the Treasury before the recess?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady clearly prepared that question before I gave my answers. I will give a detailed reply to the House before the recess. We are close to the end of the negotiations. As a former commercial negotiator, with experience in such matters, I know that one does not provide a running commentary on the state of negotiations.

[Mary Creagh]

Homes across the country are facing another night of severe rain and more homes are at risk of flooding. People are very anxious and upset because of the right hon. Lady’s total lack of progress on this issue. She has not given an answer. The deal runs out on 1 July 2013. Will she get a deal with the Treasury, and will it happen before the recess—yes or no?

[Mrs Spelman]

How can I have lit a fuse underneath this problem when I am not a Labour politician and it was the Labour Government who agreed with the Association of British Insurers that they would not renew the statement of principles? That is when the fuse was lit. They placed a smoking bomb in the same container that said, “Sorry, there’s no money left.” We have found a way forward that will provide for the affordability and universality of flood insurance.

Points of Order

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During yesterday’s urgent question on flooding, I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support Calderdale council could expect to receive under the Bellwin scheme to fund both its emergency response and its recovery effort. In her reply, she said that

“the trigger for the Bellwin formula is 15% of a local authority’s income”.—[Official Report, 25 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 25.]

That did not sound right to me, so I went to the House of Commons Library and discovered that the trigger is in fact just 0.2% of a council’s annual income; that triggers a reimbursement from central Government of 85% of the costs incurred. Would you like to invite the Secretary of State to comment and correct the record on this matter?

[Mr Speaker]

Clearly this is a key point in the mind of the shadow Secretary of State. As the Secretary of State is with us and literally on the edge of her seat, let her come to the Dispatch Box and respond if she so wishes.

Flooding

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update the House on flooding.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Over recent weeks we have seen extraordinary amounts of rainfall, culminating in the flooding earlier this month when parts of Sussex experienced almost two months’ rainfall in just 36 hours, and most recently over the past weekend.

Some areas in Cumbria, Lancashire and west Yorkshire saw a month’s worth of rain in 24 hours, but Cumbria had the highest rainfall, at 210 mm, with 200 mm in Honister, compared with between 80 mm and 100 mm elsewhere in the region. That extreme rainfall caused rivers to rise to unprecedented levels in some cases, and to flooding being experienced on Friday and overnight into Saturday.

I do understand the devastation that is caused to people whose homes and businesses are flooded; it has happened to me. We expect the number of properties affected to be at least 1,200 as final numbers are collated throughout the impacted areas. My thoughts go out to all those who have suffered flooding, especially those in the worst affected areas, including Crawshawbooth, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd. I know that local communities rallied round as the recovery operation began in earnest, and I hope that all will be able to return to their homes as soon as possible.

I should also like to take this opportunity to praise the excellent response from our front-line emergency services. I am delighted to report that, thanks in no small part to their efforts, there was no loss of life and few serious injuries. I am also very grateful for the diligent work of the Met Office and the Environment Agency staff in the Flood Forecasting Centre. Their forecasts, from the middle of last week, foresaw the event unfolding and meant that much work was possible in advance to lessen its impact.

Teams of Environment Agency and local authority staff were out before the flood waters arrived, clearing drains, testing defences and preparing flood basins. Flood warnings were issued to more than 7,000 properties, and flood warning sirens sounded in Todmorden and Hebden Bridge.

Protecting our communities against flooding is a vital area of the work of government, and I am pleased to say that the Environment Agency estimates that 11,000 properties were protected in the areas affected through a combination of flood defences, maintenance work, storage basins and temporary measures. For every property flooded, another 10 or so were not.

In Carlisle, the defences built following the 2005 floods have now prevented a repeat of that devastating event twice: in 2009 and this weekend. On Saturday, river levels in Carlisle were actually higher than they were in 2005.

In our changing climate, we will never be able to prevent flooding completely, as we have seen over this past weekend and earlier in June. Through the excellent preparations and work of front-line responders, including the police, the fire service, the Environment Agency and local authorities, and through the more than £2 billion of investment being made by the Government, however, we are better prepared for flooding than ever before.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Secretary of State for updating the House on the flooding in the north of England over the weekend, and I echo her tributes to the emergency services and voluntary sector, who worked to evacuate homes and keep people safe. I also thank the Environment Agency and local authority staff, who worked throughout Friday night to ensure that flood defences were activated in places such as my constituency of Wakefield, which was flooded in 2007, and the Lower Aire valley in Leeds.

Will the right hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to businesses that have offered help to businesses affected? Hon. Members on both sides will be relieved that no lives were lost, but the severity of the floods has meant that the communities affected face months of disruption and upheaval. What contact did the right hon. Lady have with the Cabinet Office civil contingency secretariat? What detailed information does she have on the number of homes and businesses affected in the areas of Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Todmorden?

What will happen to those who have been made homeless by the floods, and what housing arrangements are in place—particularly for the frail elderly and the disabled? What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the recovery effort? I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), is here. Which Government Minister will lead on the flood recovery and on providing support for the affected communities?

Following the floods of 2007 and 2009, the Government set up a flood recovery grant as a one-off payment to councils to help households seriously affected by the floods. Do the Government intend to help councils and communities in that way this time? If so, when can communities expect that help?

When Wakefield suffered from floods in 2007, the loan sharks were out on the streets there the very next day. What contact has the right hon. Lady had with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that crisis loans are available to families left destitute by the floods, to ensure that families do not fall prey to loan sharks?

What estimate has the Department for Communities and Local Government made on the cost of flood recovery to local authorities? Is the Bellwin scheme likely to be activated by the floods? In 2007 and 2009, central Government covered 100% of local authority costs under the Bellwin scheme. Is the right hon. Lady planning to do the same again? What contact has she had with the Department for Education to ensure that children whose schools have been flooded continue to receive their education? Will she review the flood warnings given by the Environment Agency and local authorities, as issues have been raised about the timeliness of the warnings?

When I spoke to representatives of the Association of British Insurers this morning, they said that the initial estimate was that about 500 properties had been flooded and that the likely cost to insurers was in the low tens of millions of pounds. Can the Secretary of State give an estimate of the value of uninsured losses? What support will the Government give to the under-insured or uninsured? Will she encourage the loss adjusters to get into the affected areas as quickly as possible to provide help to people?

Every £1 invested in flood defences saves £8 in costs further down the line. This weekend, we had a reminder once again that floods are the greatest threat that climate change poses to our country. The right hon. Lady mentioned how much the Government are investing in flood defences, but that is a 30% cut from the 2010 baseline. In the light of what has happened, will she undertake to review the figure? Will she reassure the House that she will resist any pressure from the Treasury to cut flood defence spending in next year’s comprehensive spending review? Communities that have been devastated by flooding should not have to go through that terrible experience again.

[Mrs Spelman]

I certainly join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the businesses that have helped with the situation on the ground—as they always do, in my experience. Every time I have visited a flood situation I have found that the whole community has rallied round, and I applaud that.

The Department has a procedure for dealing with flooding at three levels of risk: low, medium and high. Civil contingencies arrangements are not triggered at the medium risk of flooding, which is what we faced this weekend. We have arrangements in hand that cover all flooding eventualities. They were activated the week before last in Sussex and over the weekend in the north-west and west Yorkshire. The current state of play is that 1,200 homes have been registered as flooded, but the number could still rise as it becomes more accurate over time. I have a breakdown by community, if the hon. Lady is particularly interested, but without a doubt the most affected communities are Todmorden, Walsden and Callis Bridge, with 540 properties flooded, followed by Hebden Bridge, with 245 properties flooded, and Mytholmroyd and Sowerby Bridge, with 145 properties flooded. The numbers then reduce, but the flooding extends across a very wide area.

Homelessness is principally a responsibility of the local authority. The local authority in each of these areas takes a lead role in the provision of homes for those affected. I have been in contact with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make sure that our actions are joined up across Whitehall.

Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, we make specific grants available to assist local authorities, with £21 million-worth of grants provided this year and a higher figure to be provided in subsequent years of this Parliament.

On crisis loans, in the first instance the flood-affected can turn to a local authority for help through social funds. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the trigger for the Bellwin formula is 15% of a local authority’s income, and current estimates from the Department for Communities and Local Government, through the Secretary of State, suggest that it is unlikely to be triggered in this case. The scheme is there to deal with a catastrophic situation facing a local authority, and any final decision on this will not be made until we know the full extent of the damage.

The local authority has primary responsibility for ensuring that schools are safe to return to and, in turn, informing parents.

We now have available a sophisticated system of flood warnings. Perhaps it is helpful for me to make all Members of the House aware of the new facility whereby anyone in a flood-affected area can register to receive a text message flood warning. There has been a very substantial uptake of this service. However, it often increases after an event has occurred, so the Environment Agency plans to proceed with text message flood warnings on an opt-out basis in future. Where households do not have a mobile phone to receive a text, it can be received in digital form on a landline, so no one should be unaware of a flood warning. In addition, I commend to the House the use of flood wardens who can knock on people’s doors to forewarn them, especially in the case of the vulnerable and the elderly. Communities that have been flooded often subsequently seek volunteers in this role.

On flood insurance, we are at an advanced stage in intensive and constructive negotiations with the insurance industry on alternative arrangements for when the statement of principles expires this time next year. As the hon. Lady will be aware, in 2008 the insurance industry notified her party, when in government, that the statement of principles would come to an end. Her party in government did not find a successor to the principles but, as she will have heard me say, we are well on our way to doing so. The average insurance premium is roughly £300 a year, while the average estimated claim in this regard is so far estimated to be £15,000. That shows the benefit of households being insured.

On flood defences, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s figure of a 30% cut. She is not comparing like with like. If we compare how the previous Government funded flood defences in their last four years in office with our commitment to fund flood defences for the four years that succeeded their loss of power, we see that the reduction is just 6%. When she considers the mess her party left the Government in, she will recognise that that was no mean achievement. In addition, a new method of partnership funding whereby third parties come in to help to get some of these new flood defences built has brought an extra £72 million into such works in its first year of operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

The Government made it clear in the water White Paper that we published last autumn that we want to see increased connectivity. Water companies are already joining up their sources of supply to help them to move water from areas of plenty to those of greatest need. For example, interconnection exists between United Utilities and the west-east link, and as my hon. Friend will have seen in the press, there is a bulk trading proposal between Severn Trent Water and Anglian Water. Local connectivity is the key, and Ofwat will bring forward proposals for the next price review that will encourage that.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on a shining and rare example of a successful Government policy. Since the drought was declared, it has been pouring with rain and she is in danger of doing a Denis Howell. Does she believe that people with boreholes should comply with any hosepipe ban in their area?

[Mrs Spelman]

In her kind remark at the beginning, the hon. Lady recalled the plight of one of my west midlands predecessors, Denis Howell, who will be forever remembered as the Minister for Rain who tried to make it rain in 1976. He is fondly remembered.

I encourage people who have borehole capacity on their property to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and abide by the restrictions that apply to those who do not have a private supply of water. That is good practice.

[Mary Creagh]

There is some debate about the Under-Secretary of State’s hosepipe and whether it was left on. We know that the hosepipe ban has prompted—

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Misleading the House!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) should not accuse another Member of misleading the House. That is improper. I say to him in all charity and kindness that, notwithstanding his great abilities and track record, in his capacity as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister his role is to fetch and carry notes, and to nod as required; it is not to shout and heckle from a sedentary position. He will remain silent.

[Mary Creagh]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I beg the hon. Lady’s pardon. Before we go any further, the hon. Gentleman should immediately withdraw the suggestion or allegation that anyone has misled the House.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

[Mary Creagh]

That is the first time that I have been accused of misleading the House when I have described something as a matter of debate.

The hosepipe ban has prompted a borehole boom. Taking from the groundwater supply affects everyone, because that is the water that fills the reservoirs, rivers and aquifers used by the public mains water supply. The Secretary of State’s water White Paper that was published in December—her definition of “autumn” is slightly unusual—astonished the water industry, because it proposed delaying the reform of water abstraction until 2027. What plans does she have in the meantime to tackle unsustainable water use by the few to preserve drinking water supplies for the many?

[Mrs Spelman]

The reform of the abstraction regime has, in effect, commenced. At the drought summit in May last year, the stakeholders in the industry agreed that we needed to take a more flexible approach to the present 30,000 abstractions a year to ensure that the water gets to everybody who needs it. The Environment Agency was praised publicly by the stakeholders at the third drought summit for the flexibility and transparency that have been achieved in the existing abstraction system. That does not mean that there is no scope for further improvement. As I said in the water White Paper, because of the challenge of climate change, we need to reform abstraction.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The water Bill will be a further opportunity for us to revisit these issues and I welcome the fact that hon. Members across the House are still considering this matter as one that needs further exploration.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I want to reply to the hon. Gentleman’s point about league tables. The idea came from Ofwat and is meant to ensure that there is transparent information for customers, shareholders and the Government so that they understand who is levelling the tariffs, where they are going and where the money is going. That was Ofwat’s idea and I cannot claim any credit for it, much as I would like to.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady is very generous in ascribing the idea to Ofwat. I suspect that Ofwat could probably do that anyway and would not need legislation; if it wanted to publish a league table, it could get the information. Ofwat would have information from companies about where the money was coming from and where it was going and could publish it without that needing to be on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I agree that we have had a very good debate on the Bill. This week’s drought announcement illustrates the increase in weather volatility, however. If there are floods in Australia, it is likely that there will be droughts in other parts of the planet and we are going to have to plan for a lot more climate change disruptions.

As constituency MPs, we are all mindful of the fact that this April water bills will be rising by an average of 5.7%. At the same time as those bills drop on to customers’ doormats, 20 million people—about a third of our population—will be faced with a hosepipe ban across many parts of the country. The Bill puts in place assistance for the people in the south-west, however, and thereby corrects an historic injustice. It also gives powers to provide finance for infrastructure investment. We shall not oppose it on Third Reading, therefore.

I want to reflect on some of the Minister’s comments about our amendments. Amendments 1 and 2 would have introduced the principle of parliamentary scrutiny. He said Parliament does not examine spending decisions by Government, but, of course, Parliament does do that. Indeed, next week we will have the Budget and a lengthy Finance Bill that will examine Government decisions in detail.

The Water Industry Act 1991 stated that water companies could get money from the Government only if that was in the interests of national security, and that if they were ever to receive money from Government, that should be reported to Parliament. Under this Bill, that important principle of parliamentary oversight of the spending of considerable sums of taxpayers’ money is being broken.

We know that the assistance to the south-west will cost £400 million over the seven or eight years of the scheme. The Minister said it was “unimaginable” that any other water companies and customers would get public money. [Interruption.] I listened to the Minister’s remarks, and he used the word “unimaginable”. He said money would not be “sloshing” about and that the Government would not be “doling out” money to the water companies and their customers. However, in 1991 it was unimaginable to Ministers in the then Conservative Government that any water companies should ever receive money, which is why they stated that very important principle in the 1991 Act. We must not forget that the 22 water and sewerage companies are, of course, monopoly providers. At a time when bills are going up and hosepipe bans are being introduced in what is a monopoly industry, we now have to explain to our constituents why this money is being provided.

The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) talked about the debt to equity ratio of Thames Water, as well as the structuring of the company and the packaging up of debt. Government infrastructure investment bonds might be useful in this regard. We heard this morning about the new 100-year bonds. They could be a prime candidate to be the long-term investment vehicles to finance large infrastructure projects such as the Thames Water tunnel.

This Bill’s title includes the phrase “Financial Assistance”, and we know that the groups that are most vulnerable to water poverty are single parents, pensioners and jobseekers. However, only a third of eligible households access the current WaterSure scheme. We want to see much more action from water companies to ensure that the most vulnerable access either national or company social tariffs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said, we should not expect water companies to be philanthropists, and so our new clause 1 was intended to be helpful. I am sorry that the Minister thought it an unacceptable regulatory burden on water companies.

When Labour was in government, we found league tables to be a very effective benchmarking tool in driving up performance in public services—schools and hospitals—allowing consumers, customers and taxpayers to understand where their money goes and where they are getting value for money. League tables provide transparency and equity, and in providing a public service—I cannot think of a more crucial infrastructure one than water—it is very important to end the postcode lottery on people’s eligibility for financial assistance.

Labour Members think that in future financing projects we need to be very careful about the burden we place on water customers, and we use the idea of league tables as a benchmarking tool. Many companies use benchmarking groups, which, on an anonymised basis, provide data to researchers, with the companies then getting the data back so that they can benchmark their performance. We do not see anything wrong, or any regulatory burden for the companies, if these companies are forced, by the regulator, to disclose what they are doing, so that we can bring the poor performers up to the level of the best and spur the best performers on to innovation on social tariffs.

We know that the Thames tunnel will add £70 to £80 to Londoners’ bills. Obviously, a number of questions have been raised about that, but I am concerned that the House may not have a large number of opportunities to debate this infrastructure project in the future, and so we need to make sure that proper consultation takes place. The House has debated the Crossrail Bill, which was a hybrid Bill—I made my comments clear on Second Reading as to why this was not a hybrid Bill. The Thames tunnel will create up to 4,000 direct jobs and our final amendment sought to ensure that the benefit of that £4 billion investment accrues to London and Londoners, as they will be paying for it.

Let me cite the example of what I found when I travelled to the Stade de France in Paris, in 1996, and met people from Bouygues, the big French construction company which was building the stadium. The French Government had taken the decision to build it in Paris Saint-Denis, a very poor suburb. This was about 16 years ago, a long time ago, but I was shown the number of apprenticeships at levels 4, 5 and 6—we are talking about master’s-level qualifications—that would accrue throughout that construction project. As my party perhaps did in government, this Government are potentially letting construction companies off the hook by saying that it is an unacceptable regulatory burden to ask them to do more on apprenticeships. Where does the 20% apprenticeships figure come from? Over a four-year project, why can we not get bright young undergraduates in, give them the on-the-job training and make sure that they then become the next generation of London’s civil engineers?

If I may, I shall leave the last word to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). He talked about his young constituent rowing on the Thames, who said that we have a duty to protect our river in this great world city and that his generation is looking to our generation to build something amazing. We hope that that is what will result from today’s discussion, and that we will protect our great global capital city and one of the world’s great rivers for the next century.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to address that issue, which also comes up later on the Order Paper. We do not believe that any regulation on the Schmallenberg virus is necessary. The important point to note is that all the evidence of it that we are now seeing—the deformed lambs and a few deformed calves—is from infection caused last autumn in the midge season. We are working closely with the other member states in northern Europe, where the disease was found earlier than in the UK, to develop the science. A year ago we had never heard of the virus, so we are having to develop all the basic science to move forward with tests and maybe vaccination.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I begin by wishing all Welsh colleagues dydd gwyl Dewi hapus, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) reliably informs me is “happy St David’s day”. I hope I have not offended anyone with my pronunciation.

We are grateful to the Minister for his speedy offer of a meeting with the chief vet on the Schmallenberg disease, which we hope to have early next week. As the Minister says, there is much that we do not yet know. Has the arrival of the virus in England led to any changes or pauses in the implementation of the Macdonald report?

[Mr Paice]

The short answer is no. At this stage, we do not see any need to change the decisions arising from the Macdonald report. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her thanks for the briefing by the chief vet. It is important that all Members are properly informed about the disease. When her party was in government it kindly briefed me on such subjects, and it is only right to reciprocate. She will be aware that I wrote to all Members about a fortnight or three weeks ago with a very clear exposition of the situation.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the Minister for those comments. May I suggest that it might be useful for the chief vet to meet all Members of Parliament to give those with badly affected constituencies the opportunity to question him?

The Minister argued against the disease being made notifiable in the EU. Will he explain why, when many farmers want it to be notifiable so that scientists can build up the full picture and help develop the effective vaccine that we all want? What steps has he taken to scale up the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency so that it is not overwhelmed by testing as we enter the peak lambing season? How much will that extra resource cost and who will pay for it?

[Mr Paice]

On the last point, I assure the hon. Lady that, as this is—I will not say it is an emergency—obviously very urgent, we are finding the necessary resources. It is only right and proper that we do so. I cannot give a figure because it is all changing as we go. The chief executive of the AHVLA is addressing the issue of its resources. I am afraid that I have forgotten her first point.

[Mary Creagh]

Notifiability.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful. The advice from the vets is that that is not necessary. We are receiving a tremendous amount of information from the private veterinary sector and, of course, samples from those in that sector and some directly from farmers, which all go into our labs for testing. As she implies, I urge all farmers to report any particular evidence. At the moment, we do not see any need for notifiability, but the matter is under review.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Bill is welcome, if a little unexpected. It is welcome because it provides assistance to the people hit hardest by the botched Tory privatisation of the water industry, which created a water company in the south-west with too few people to pay for the £2 billion investment needed to create the south-west’s sewerage system over the following 20 years, with just 3% of the population clearing up 30% of the nation’s coastline. It left them with the highest unmetered water bills of any region and the Bill seeks to provide some relief, a fact that we welcome.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady had the opportunity to visit my constituency and I look forward to hearing from her how that went. Does she not appreciate the fact that, as the Secretary of State has just mentioned, £90 billion has been invested since privatisation that probably would not otherwise have been invested? There was also a debate among the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends in the past about privatising the railways, but there is general agreement in the country that water privatisation has been a success bar the unfortunate circumstances that pertain in the south-west in the context of its having the longest coastline and the application of the EU bathing directive in that regard.

[Mary Creagh]

I am happy to report that the pigs I met in the farmer’s field in the hon. Lady’s constituency were extremely well. There was a very strong smell of bacon coming off them, even while they were alive, which was very nice, and I was very happy to see them.

On privatisation, we accept the consensus that privatisation is here to stay and that it has delivered the investment in the infrastructure at no direct cost to the taxpayer. It is clear that that cost has been paid indirectly by customers through their bills, however, with particular damage to customers in the south-west. That is why the Bill is with us today.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

This seems to be a particularly smelly debate. Can the hon. Lady explain why over 13 years, despite recognising the problems of privatisation in Cornwall and the south-west, Labour did nothing to help address the concerns that the Bill addresses?

[Mary Creagh]

I have in my hand a graph from Ofwat’s website about the annual average bill. The hon. Gentleman will see—I am not sure whether he can see this far, but I would be happy to pass it on to him—that when we passed the relevant water legislation in 2000 water bills dropped from an average of £325 a year to £285 a year. During that water review period, water bills were much lower. We took action across the country and that will also have affected the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in the south-west. He is also ignoring the fact that we asked Anna Walker to consider the issue of affordability. We have had the Walker report and only one aspect of its many recommendations is being debated today. The rest are being left, I am afraid, on the long finger.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I paid water bills in the south-west for 13 years under the hon. Lady’s Government and I cannot remember my bills ever being stable or not increasing considerably. I do not know where she has got her figures from—perhaps she is looking at a national figure—but I can assure her that my bills have not reduced.

[Mary Creagh]

Does the hon. Lady think that the £50 a year for which the Bill provides until the end of the spending review period is adequate compensation for her constituents? It will undoubtedly be eaten up by the next two years-worth of price increases in cash terms.

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

Does the hon. Lady accept that this coalition Government have done more in 13 months than the Labour Government did in 13 years? We have 3% of the population in the south-west and 30% of the beaches, and that is why we have got these extreme costs. This Government have faced up to their responsibilities and delivered real cash to water bill payers, rather than just talking about it like the previous Government.

[Mary Creagh]

I am disappointed at the hon. Gentleman’s tone, because he is ignoring the fact that we commissioned the Walker report when we were in government. He is also ignoring the action we took, not least to prevent customers from being disconnected. I am sure that many of his constituents were affected in the early days of water privatisation when hundreds of thousands of customers were cut off—disconnected—from their water supply for non-payment of bills. We changed that. We changed the law and effectively instigated a right to water, which we think is a basic human right and is required for basic dignity and decency. I am sure that affected many people in the south-west.

The Bill is welcome because it lays down powers exercised by the Secretary of State to provide finance for the huge infrastructure investment that is needed to clean up the Thames, which has had very little investment since the great sewer drilled by Bazalgette 150 years ago. However, there are a number of questions that the Secretary of State must answer. First, why is the Bill so short? We are in a time of drought not seen in this country since 1976, so why is she focusing on the little picture rather than the big picture? Why was the water White Paper that was due in spring 2011 not published until December 2011? Her colleague the Minister with responsibility for water is now promising a draft water Bill this spring, so can she confirm that there will not be a full water Bill to take forward the other measures in Anna Walker’s report in the Queen’s Speech this May—yes or no?

[Mrs Spelman]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), will be happy to answer this point in detail, but we do not need new measures to do some of the important things we need to do right now to tackle this drought. I mentioned the drought summit. As we saw last year, flexibility in terms of abstraction licences helped our farmers and we did not need hosepipe bans.

The extra time we took for the water White Paper improved it, putting resilience at its heart, and the climate change risk assessment vindicated that decision. I am sure that hon. Members would like the time to debate, through proper pre-legislative scrutiny, the measures set out in the water Bill. The Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that a draft bill would come forward within months and I have repeated that commitment today.

[Mary Creagh]

I take it from that answer that there will not be a full water Bill in the Queen’s Speech this May. On the issue of abstraction, the proposals so far in the water White Paper talk about reforming the abstraction licence with an end date of 2027. The Secretary of State has had three drought summits—

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

Much can be done now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

That is fantastic; so we can look forward to a reform of the abstraction regime that will not take until 2027.

[Frank Dobson]

In considering any water shortages that may or may not occur this year, will my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State bear in mind that in the 22 years since privatisation there has been no net increase in reservoir capacity in England?

[Mary Creagh]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will have digested that point from my right hon. Friend.

This is an orphan Bill, which is decoupled from the long-term reforms required to tackle climate change and keep water affordable. Why does the Bill, which affects two areas—the south-west and London—not mention those two areas? Is it because that would make it a hybrid Bill, which would require full and proper scrutiny in the other place? Is it because by not mentioning those two areas and drawing the Bill widely, the Secretary of State is able to define it as a money Bill, which means that it receives only a cursory one day’s scrutiny in the other place? What possible reason could she have to fear their lordships’ scrutiny of this worthy and timely Bill? We can surmise that she is keen to get her short Bill through Parliament—an endeavour that does not seem to have been properly communicated by the Whips to her own Back Benchers, if today’s sudden change of business is anything to go by.

[Andrew George]

I note that the hon. Lady described the Bill as worthy and timely. I am curious about her line. She says that £50 per household in the south-west is insufficient; I would like to know whether she and her party propose offering more to the south-west, and how that would be funded. Secondly, in view of the line that she is taking, is she suggesting that she and her party will vote against the Bill today?

[Mary Creagh]

I am happy to say that we will not vote against the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman waits, I will come on to some of the wider affordability issues and will, I hope, answer some of his questions on the wider issues.

The next unanswered question is: why are we debating the Bill now? We know that the Government ran out of meaningful new legislative business about two months ago, and the House has been surviving on thin rations—a meagre diet of one-line-Whip business and Back-Bench business debates, valuable though they are. There was no new Government legislation, but suddenly—boom!—out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a Department whose Ministers are the embodiment of clout, grip and competence, spurted a sudden, short water Bill, born of the realisation that if the Department has lost its slot in May’s Queen’s Speech, it had better deliver on the Chancellor’s promises to the south-west and his coalition partners. That happened just six short weeks before the end of one of the longest parliamentary Sessions ever held. Clearly, such a masterstroke of parliamentary planning and timing could have been confected only by the Department that brought us the forest sell-off.

Labour in government corrected many of the injustices of water privatisation. As I said, in 2000 we banned water companies from cutting off the water supply of homes, schools and hospitals for non-payment. It is extraordinary to think that legislators would allow provisions that let hospitals—care givers and providers of sanitation—be cut off for non-payment of bills. We allowed for compulsory metering in areas of scarcity, and a more muscular Ofwat, holding the water companies to account, has emerged in recent years.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will make some progress, and then I will give way. Where specific issues required careful consideration, we brought in experts to advise us. We commissioned the Pitt report after the 2007 floods, the Cave report to look at competition and innovation, and the Walker report, which analysed water charging and looked explicitly at the problem of high bills in the south-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) legislated for water companies to introduce social tariffs in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I shall now examine each of those issues in turn.

Some have questioned why the Tory and Lib Dem Government wanted to extend £40 million a year in financial assistance to a region dominated by Tories and Lib Dems. I will leave others to speculate about the politics, but it is clear that customers in the south-west face bills that are, on average, 43% higher than in other areas. That is why we examined the issue in government and did the groundwork on helping those 700,000 households. I pay tribute to colleagues in all parts of the House, and to our former colleague, Linda Gilroy, for their work on the issue.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could tell the House the average cost of a water bill in the south-west pre-privatisation, and say how that compared with bills in other parts of the country.

[Mary Creagh]

I do not know what the costs were, but I can say that all water bills were considerably lower pre-privatisation. If the hon. Gentleman looks at graphs of what happened to bills post-privatisation, he will see that they went up exponentially, particularly in the early 1990s. They were kept down in ’91 and ’92, and then they went up exponentially across the board. From memory, they were around £250; that has gone up massively.

[Mr Offord]

How much was it in the south-west?

[Mary Creagh]

I do not have those figures. Does the hon. Gentleman have them? Perhaps he will share them with the House in the debate.

We accept the argument that the south-west requires additional help to keep water affordable, but stopping there misses the point. Ofwat, the independent regulator, estimates that a fifth of households are already spending more than 3% of their income on their water bills, yet Ministers have failed to bring forward any plans to tackle high bills, apart from in the south-west, which has the highest bills in the country. There, around 200,000 people spend more than 3% of their disposable income on water bills, but in the Thames region there are a staggering 1 million people in the same predicament, so surely we should be working towards extending help through a national affordability solution. Without one, the effect of the Government’s £50-a-year payment in the south-west will soon be wiped out by price rises; prices will rise by more than inflation in each of the next three years. The assistance is welcome, but decoupled from wider reform, it will provide little lasting help on water affordability. I hope that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

We know from Ofwat that the groups most vulnerable to water poverty are single parents, pensioners and jobseekers. When we were in government, we introduced WaterSure, a national affordability scheme paid for by a cross-subsidy from water customers, and paid only to metered households with three or more children or to people with certain medical conditions, but the limitations of the scheme are apparent, because not everyone in water poverty has three or more children, and many pensioners and jobseekers will not be eligible for the scheme.

There is a further problem of penetration of WaterSure. Only a third of eligible households access the scheme, so there is big issue relating to the role of the water companies in educating their customers about WaterSure and the role of places such as jobcentres in making sure that people have access and understand their entitlement.

[Mrs Spelman]

When the hon. Lady’s party was in power, what did it plan to do about the fact that two thirds of people eligible under WaterSure were not taking it up? Will she acknowledge, therefore, that with the baton being passed to the present Government, who continue to run the WaterSure policy but with more determination to enable more eligible households to take it up, we have supported that with the introduction of guidance on social tariffs to all companies?

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Lady might want to answer her own question. We commissioned the Walker report, which said that Ofwat should do a six-monthly league table of water companies showing the best and worst performers. She has had 18 months. Has she implemented the recommendations of the Walker report? She has made her own guidance to water companies on social tariffs voluntary, not mandatory, and I fail to see how allowing them to choose whether to implement them will help customers.

[Alison Seabeck]

Perhaps I can shed some light on what was going on under the previous Government. In the Plymouth south-west area, a detailed pilot was undertaken to identify people for whom water was unaffordable. That was to feed through into forward policy development. Anna Walker used that as part of the basis for some of the work that she did, so it is not true that we were not considering how to reach the people who needed help.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is clear that much work was done in the south-west because it has the highest penetration of WaterSure customers and the highest rate of metered households, despite the fact that water is plentiful in the south-west, so it has nothing to do with scarcity. It has to do with people making a rational economic choice and understanding that if they move to metered bills, their costs will go down.

The Government should be using existing data about benefits to ensure that everyone who is eligible is on the WaterSure tariff. I hope we have described the heavy lifting that we did on that tariff. Last year the Government consulted on taking on the costs of WaterSure and absorbing them at a cost to the Exchequer of £10 million a year, as opposed to continuing the cross-subsidy. This idea was dropped from the water White Paper. What has happened to that notional £10 million? Why is it not being used to part-fund company social tariffs or a wider tariff to help the wider population?

Londoners will see their bills rise by £70 to £80 a year when the Thames tunnel is finished in, we hope, 2020. London has some of the poorest people in the country and a significant number living in water poverty. WaterSure will not help most of them. It is imperative that company social tariffs are introduced well before the Thames tunnel is completed to minimise the financial impact on Londoners, yet the Government’s draft guidance on company social tariffs shows that they are adopting a minimalist approach.

The Government have ruled out data sharing, which is key to helping water companies identify customers in water poverty and enabling them automatically to reduce their bill, which is obviously the least painful way, rather than allowing people to get into water debt and then taking action through the courts to pursue the money. They have ruled out an affordability scheme administered nationally, and they have ruled out an extension of WaterSure, which is the only national social tariff. Under DEFRA’s draft guidance, the design of social tariff schemes is left entirely to the water companies. Indeed, it is their choice whether to implement a scheme at all. This is the big society in action: a postcode lottery for millions of customers facing water poverty. We believe that it is untenable for the Government to pass a water financial assistance Bill without providing any assistance to the rest of the country. We will pursue amendments that would oblige water companies to deliver a social tariff scheme that meets clear and uniform criteria.

[Dan Rogerson]

On the question of how WaterSure will be funded and placing obligations on companies, if we have a funded social tariff in the south-west, it will have a disproportionate effect on the other bill payers who are paying into the pot. More work needs to be done before we start pushing regions down the route of having generous social tariffs, because we need to know what costs are being loaded on to other bill payers in the region.

[Mary Creagh]

That is an excellent point. That is why we were interested in the Government’s consultation, which talked about a national affordability scheme and offered the potential to absorb the costs of WaterSure. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on that in his closing speech, and I am sure that we can work together on that.

[Simon Hughes]

I do not mean to pre-empt what the hon. Lady might say on the other aspects of bills for water rate payers, but are she and her colleagues concerned—I put this point to the Secretary of State—that the value to water rate payers in London of the Thames tunnel, which is now priced a £4.1 billion, might not be what it was when the previous Government thought it was a good idea? There are big questions about whether it represents value for money for water rate payers and is the best solution in the light of the evidence.

[Mary Creagh]

We believe that the allocation of sums, guarantees, indemnities, or whatever form the financial assistance takes, should be done with full parliamentary oversight, and I will address that when I move on to clause 2.

We believe that the tariffs should be paid for by cracking down on bad debt, which the Secretary of State mentioned in her speech. Ofwat’s website states:

“More than five million households currently owe money on their water bills and over the last five years the amount owed has increased by more than 50%.”

In 2010, £1.6 billion was outstanding, three times the amount of bad debt for gas and electricity bills, despite the fact that water bills are much lower. As she said, the people who cannot or will not pay add an average of £15 a year to the bills of consumers who play by the rules. Bad debt arises in part because landlords are under no legal obligation to provide their tenants’ details to water companies. Rather than a voluntary approach, the Government should compel landlords to share their tenants’ details with water companies, and I know that the consultation is ongoing and is due to close fairly soon. If we reduce bad debt, we can reduce everyone’s bills and fund social tariffs that help those struggling to pay.

Clause 2 creates financial mechanisms and guarantees to support the construction of the Thames tunnel. Why do the Government avoid using the words “Thames tunnel”? Are they trying to avoid a proper discussion of the merits? Labour supports the project. Our Flood and Water Management Act 2010 introduced a “provision of infrastructure” regulation, creating the framework for the tendering, designation and building of such projects. However, costs have risen and time scales have stretched. The Government need to show leadership and make a clear commitment to the project and ensure that the right vehicle for managing and delivering it is put in place. The consultation process for the tunnel is vital for ensuring that sites are placed correctly and the environmental impact of the work on residents is minimised.

[Mr Slaughter]

I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the Thames tunnel, and to that extent I agree with the Secretary of State. However, had the Secretary of State not chuntered through her speech in such a cursory manner on an issue that is very important to London Members, I could have told her that the virulently anti-tunnel comments that I quoted were not mine, but those of my neighbouring Tory MP, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who happens to be a Government Whip. This is just another example of members of the Government saying one thing in the House before going back to their constituencies and saying the exact opposite.

[Mary Creagh]

That used to be the province of the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps saying two different things, depending on whether one is at the top or the bottom of the hill, in the House or in one’s constituency, is contagious. We should all take the necessary precautions, but such indiscipline would never have been allowed when I was a Government assistant Whip.

There remain, however, a number of hurdles to clear, not least that of the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who has an effective veto over the tunnel, so DEFRA support alone will be insufficient. We see the tunnel, in addition to its environmental benefit, as an opportunity to create up to 4,000 direct jobs for Londoners, to expand apprenticeships and to regenerate London. With the provision of financial assistance, we expect not just those apprenticeships but higher-level training to be a non-negotiable part of the deal.

In an infrastructure project of this scale, complexity and duration, we should be setting targets not just for apprentices but for the number of young people who will achieve masters-level civil engineering qualifications over the project’s lifetime, as well as encouraging local and national procurement to secure growth and the economic recovery in London.

No impact assessment has been produced alongside the Bill. The rather short explanatory memorandum states that this is because the Bill is associated with public expenditure, but clearly there will be burdens on water companies when administering any schemes under clauses 1 and 2, so what conditions will South West Water have to fulfil? Presumably, there will be an audit process, so what will the company’s administrative costs be, or has it agreed to waive them?

Of more concern, however, is the fact that there is no provision anywhere in the Bill to require potentially large sums of taxpayers’ money to be spent transparently and accountably. Clauses 1 and 2 state that undefined “terms and conditions” can be attached to the use of public money, but that falls well short of making clear exactly what will happen, and we believe that certain safeguards should be specified in the Bill.

I had a little look at the Water Industry Act 1991 this morning, and section 152 states that the Government can pay out money to water firms only

“in the interests of national security.”

So it is clear that infrastructure projects of the scale and cost of the one before us were simply not envisaged at the time of privatisation.

Today’s Bill shows those limitations, and section 154 of the 1991 Act also states very clearly that if any financial assistance or guarantee is given,

“the Secretary of State shall lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament”

and

“as soon as possible after the end of each financial year…lay before each House of Parliament a statement relating to that sum.”

The right hon. Lady says that the subsidy to South West Water will continue until the end of the next comprehensive spending review period, but that again is not in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum, and we want to see those things guaranteed.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady commit her party, should it ever return to power, to continue the £50 discount each year?

[Mary Creagh]

We have to look at the cost of water bills in the round—the average, unmetered cost of water bills. We want to bring them down throughout the country, but we are not sure what sort of economy we will inherit, so I shall not make any election promises today.

We will seek to amend the Bill in Committee so that the Government are required to seek further parliamentary approval for such payments through the laying of a statutory instrument. That power should be triggered after a sober assessment of the facts, and after the Secretary of State has made her case to the House.

The explanatory memorandum is silent on state aid. Is the Bill compatible with EU state aid rules? Has the Environment Secretary discussed the matter with the European Commission? [Interruption.] Okay. So water customers do not run any risk of having to repay the assistance at a later date. That is a relief.

In conclusion, despite the right hon. Lady’s warm words, this “financial assistance” Bill is poorly named. It extends no financial assistance to anyone except those living in the south-west. It is an orphan Bill, conceived in haste, which is silent on the wider affordability issues, and it ignores the cost-of-living crisis for households hit by this Government’s assault on the squeezed middle.

We recognise that privatised water has brought benefits, with £90 billion invested in our infrastructure at no direct cost to the taxpayer, and we believe that water should remain a properly regulated private industry. Today, however, is a day for thinking about the water customer. Since privatisation, customers’ bills have increased year on year, wherever they live. Many have found themselves adjusting to metered water, and by 2015 there will for the first time be more metered customers than unmetered ones. Climate change will mean more regions being under greater water stress, with consequences for customers’ water use. That is why it is down to us to hammer out a new consensus on water affordability. I ask Ministers to work with us to amend the Bill and help hard-pressed families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss McIntosh]

Given what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said as well, I do not think that the House is in any doubt about the need for the Thames tunnel super-sewer, but we should not underestimate how long the project will take and its cost. Concerns about rising costs, to which hon. Members alluded, were expressed in the evidence to the Committee.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Lady said that she was not clear whether we support the Bill. I want to put it on the record that I said at several points that we do support it. As for whether we would continue with it, we would have no plans to repeal it in government if we were elected in 2015.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the hon. Lady’s helpful clarification, because her concluding remarks were a little ambivalent.

Returning to DEFRA’s acceptance of some of our conclusions, some of the site-specific material has been moved to an annex that is part of the document that is not to be relied on by the decision maker in reaching a decision on a project. That meets, to some extent, our criticism about the inclusion of weak material on the Thames tunnel, as well as on Deephams sewage treatment works. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will also give us a status report on those treatment works.

Points of Order

Mary Creagh Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We look forward to debating the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, which is being presented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs today. It will certainly be good finally to have some Government business to discuss. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether it is normal when a Bill is introduced outside the legislative programme, as this one has been, for the Opposition to discover its existence through leaks from the other place? Can you further advise whether it is normal for a Secretary of State when approached by her opposite number to state, “I’m not speaking to you; I don’t have to speak to you,” which was the response of the Environment Secretary when I approached her yesterday? I am not sure whether she was feeling a little out of her depth. When I informed her office, at 6.15 pm last night, that I would raise this point of order about the lack of usual courtesies, I received an e-mail from her 20 minutes later finally informing me of the Bill’s presentation in the House now. May I ask you, Mr Speaker, to use your good offices and the usual channels to ensure that the Opposition are kept fully informed of any future urgent business and that the Government do not just drip-feed information to us?

[Mr Speaker]

I will say a number of things to the hon. Lady. First, on the whole it is probably unwise for the Chair to rule on the matter of normality, which the hon. Lady raised early in her point of order. I shall eschew any temptation to say anything about that. Secondly, she has regaled the House with a racy and intoxicating account of the recent sequence of events which apparently perturbs her but about which I do not think any further comment from me is either necessary or helpful.