House of Commons
Tuesday 15 December 2009
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Treasury
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
High Frequency Share Trading
High frequency trading practices and the firms that use them are subject to existing regulation, which includes provisions covering behaviour and market conduct. The Financial Services Authority will take action if those provisions are breached, and it continues to assess the risks from changing market practices, in consultation with other securities regulators.
The Minister will be well aware that nanosecond ownership of shares fundamentally changes the relationship between the shareholder and the board of directors, and therefore corporate governance. However, small firms that are, in a sense, not suitable for high frequency share trading will find it more difficult to raise equity capital, and such trading is related to a lot of activity that takes place off the exchanges in so-called dark pools. Does he not think that this at least deserves some detailed scrutiny and review before we walk into another disaster involving instruments that we do not understand?
I agree with the hon. Lady that this needs detailed scrutiny and review. She might be aware of the paper that the Treasury issued on Friday entitled “Risk, reward and responsibility: the financial sector and society”, which discusses a number of these issues. I am not sure that I agree with her point about liquidity and small companies, because there is evidence that high frequency trading is an important way of ensuring that there is additional liquidity. She will be aware, however, that the Committee of European Securities Regulators will be giving advice to the Commission next year on the review of the markets in financial instruments directive, which will certainly include the issue of high frequency trading and the nature of the changing equity market.
Order. We need to speed up.
May I ask my hon. Friend about speculative share trading in Cadbury? The City Minister, Lord Myners, said recently that he thought that it had become far too easy for British companies to be taken over. Does my hon. Friend agree, and if so, what can be done in Cadbury’s case?
I do not think that it would be appropriate to comment on individual cases. The UK has a long-established regime of open markets and a stock market, and all publicly listed companies are for sale; that is the nature of listing. I am confident that Cadbury is a well-run company. It is putting up a strong defence, and it will be up to shareholders to decide how they want to vote and support it.
Budget 2009
A substantial amount of targeted support has been provided by the Government to help businesses through the recession.
How would a flat tax, as advocated by some Opposition Members, help the recovery?
I have never seen the attraction of a flat tax at the best of times. It would mean that people at the top end of the income scale would pay rather less than those at the bottom, and at this time, of all times, there ought to be fairness. Of course, I do not think that a flat tax would help businesses at all. The targeted measures that we are putting in place, such as giving businesses time to pay their tax, allowing them to carry back their losses and the reduction in VAT, are helping—and will help—business.
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the estimated sum that will be retained by small businesses in the UK as a result of freezing the level of small companies’ corporation tax?
I think that I said in my statement on the pre-Budget report that about 850,000 firms had benefited from that measure. It is important that we do everything we can to help small businesses, because after all, they employ a great number of people and will, hopefully, grow into larger businesses.
Is not the reality that businesses in our constituencies still cannot access the credit that they need, and that all this newly printed money is being siphoned off into purchasing gilts to finance the extra borrowing that is a direct result of the Chancellor’s failure to come up with a proper fiscal plan to reduce the deficit?
No. I believe that the quantitative easing measures taken by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England are helping the process of recovery. The hon. Gentleman has a point, however, about bank lending. As I have said before, the stock of lending is broadly similar to what it was before the crisis. In addition, the banks in which we have major shareholdings —RBS and Lloyds—have lent an additional £50 billion. At the same time, however, there has been a repayment of lending by other businesses, which is why the net figure looks so low. As I said last week, it is necessary that the deficit be reduced, and we will halve it over a four-year period once recovery has been established—but it is important to ensure that we get that recovery established.
This recession is longer and deeper than either of the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. Unemployment and youth unemployment are higher than they were in 1997, so the decision to add an additional national insurance burden for employers seems to make no sense, as it will weaken businesses’ ability to create jobs. Does the Chancellor not agree with the chamber of commerce in his home town of Edinburgh that that makes no sense, and that he should have been incentivising job creation, not penalising it?
We have introduced a number of measures to help people get into work, and there are 2.5 million more people in work now than there were in 1997. Also, unemployment would have been much higher if we had followed the course of action taken in the 1990s and the 1980s. The measures that we are taking are working, and they are making sure that we are getting people back into work much more quickly than was the case in the past. Most people find work within six months, and many get back into work in a much shorter period. We will continue to do whatever is necessary to maintain jobs. That is important in every part of the country, including Scotland.
May I report back to the Chancellor the information that I was given yesterday by the Volkswagen training centre in my constituency about the car scrappage scheme? I was told that it had been hugely successful in boosting jobs, particularly in the motor retail sector. The centre’s evidence showed that it had been taken up by people who would not have bought cars otherwise, and especially by large numbers of elderly motorists and women. They valued the simplicity of the scrappage scheme and found it very useful.
I met one such customer in Manchester last summer—[Hon. Members: “That’s two, then!”] On the basis of those two anecdotal pieces of evidence, I am sure that we must be on the right track. Rather more importantly, however, since the Budget last year there have been 290,000 orders for new vehicles. We have made a further £100 million available, and the scheme is an example of how a comparatively small amount of money has helped the confidence in the motor industry, which is a major employer in our country. In addition, Honda has announced that it is switching some production from Japan to this country, and Nissan too has reported an increase in production. This is an example of a policy making a difference to a very important part of our country’s industry.
Businesses need a credible plan from the Government to deal with the fiscal deficit. The universal reaction last week from every single business organisation was that that plan does not exist. One important step that the Chancellor could take today is to be honest about the real-terms cut in departmental spending that the figures that he announced last week imply. Will he confirm what Treasury officials told the Treasury Committee this morning and give us, in the Chamber now, the projections for departmental spending that he refused to give last week?
First, we have set out a plan to cut borrowing by half over a four-year period. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s view, which is shared by some others as well, that we could go further and faster. However, I believe that attempting to do what we are doing in a period one year shorter than that would result in taking £26 billion more out of our economy. That would be damaging to our economy and very damaging to our future prospects, which is why I do not think that his policy on this matter is right.
Secondly, in relation to departmental spending, I said in the pre-Budget report last week that I wanted to ensure that we could protect front-line services in the NHS and in schools, and make sure that we had sufficient police on the beat. I made that clear, but I also made it clear that I was not going to fix individual departmental expenditure limits for each Department at this stage, because there is still a lot of uncertainty around. We already have spending for the next year; that remains my position.
I do not think that the Chancellor can be aware of the universal reaction to his PBR statement last week. The international markets believe that there is “no coherent plan” in the UK, that our sovereign credit rating is “vulnerable” and that interest rates are going to be forced higher, leading to the UK losing its “top-notch status” for the first time ever. Every single business organisation slammed the report as being no plan for recovery, and the Chancellor completely betrayed the high responsibility of his office, which would have been to stand up to a Prime Minister who is pursuing a policy of scorched earth and political dividing lines.
I ask the Chancellor a very specific question: will he publish the departmental spending projections? I am talking not about the projections for individual departments, but about the overall departmental expenditure limits that we had to leak after the PBR. His Treasury officials told the Treasury Committee this morning that they would, so will he publish that information this afternoon?
I said to the hon. Gentleman that we had not fixed the spending for individual Departments, and until that time it would not be right to speculate on what each Department might or might not get, because there is so much uncertainty. In relation to the general point that he makes, I believe that what we have done is the right thing for the economy. We are supporting the economy. To start taking money out of the economy now, as he proposes, would damage our prospects for the future. It is important at the same time to set out a clear path for reducing the amount of borrowing, and I have done that as well. We are one of the first countries to do that. That is a sensible way of proceeding, it is the right thing to do to support our economy, and it is the right thing to do to support jobs, which Labour Members, at least, regard as being of paramount importance.
Financial Services (Regulation)
I have regular meetings with the Governor to discuss a wide range of issues.
Does the Chancellor agree that his Government’s decision to remove from the Bank of England its banking oversight and regulatory function was incredibly misguided and short-sighted? Does he also agree that that is one of the main reasons why the banking and financial crisis in Britain is worse than in practically any other country—apart, perhaps, from Iceland?
No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. That had nothing to do with the origins of the crisis in the banking sector. The start of the problem was that too many banks, particularly in the United States in the sub-prime market, took on risk that they did not understand. If the hon. Gentleman was right in his analysis, there would not have been a banking crisis in any other country. The fact is that every developed country has experienced this—and as the hon. Gentleman knows, they all have different models in relation to regulation and supervision. The primary responsibility for any organisation must rest with the board of directors of that organisation, and in too many cases they were found wanting. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that his analysis of what happened is wrong.
In his discussions with the Bank of England about regulation, has the Chancellor discussed, or will he discuss, the involvement of Lloyds TSB in the practice of “stripping”—laundering money—from Iran via London into the United States which has caused it to be fined more than $300 million as a preliminary fine, which ordinary people in the UK are having to pay as a consequence of their ownership of Lloyds TSB?
No, but I know that my hon. Friend has raised the matter before. I will write to him about it. I had better do that, for the sake of completeness, and I will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library.
The Chancellor said as recently as 30 November:
“The structure”—
that is, the regulatory structure—
“that we have with the Bank and the FSA is the right one.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 876.]
Given that we have seen loan-to-value ratios of 125 per cent. and rampant self-certification in domestic mortgage lending going unchecked, warnings about the asset price bubble going unheeded, a banking system that came within hours of collapse, and total taxpayer exposure to that banking system now equivalent to about £40,000 per family, could he tell the House what kind of disaster it would take to persuade him that that structure was not the right one?
The hon. Gentleman is working on the basis that it was the regulatory structure that caused those problems. Equally, I might ask him how he thinks reversing the FSA into the Bank of England, with the same people doing the same job, would automatically have meant that the problem would not have arisen. I have explained to the House on many occasions what the problem was. Principally, it was a failure in relation to those responsible for running the banks—a failure to understand the risks to which they had become exposed. Yes, there were mistakes in the regulatory system and the supervisory system in every major developed country in the world. There is no doubt about that, but I honestly do not think that putting the FSA into the Bank of England would have prevented the problem from arising in the first place. I remind the Conservative party that just a few weeks before the crisis, the one policy that it had come up with was a policy that it was not necessary to regulate mortgages, because the risk lay with the institutions not with the individuals. Look where that policy would have ended up.
Remuneration Levels
I am happy to look at the case for this research. We understand the pain both of the banking sector and of the public sector quite well, and we are introducing reform to both.
But does the Minister understand the anger that is reflected in the response of public sector workers to the pre-Budget report, when they see the incomes being given, granted to or thrown at the banking sector? Does he not understand that he must take further measures in order to redress the balance? When the economy returns to good health, will he make public sector pay a priority for the Government?
Fixing the very poor level of public sector pay that we inherited was of course a priority for us, and that is why over the past 10 or 11 years the pay of teachers has gone up by 52 per cent., that of police officers by 57 per cent. and that of nurses by 65 per cent. I think that, by and large, we have fixed the investment gap that we inherited from the Conservatives, but as we move into the years ahead we have to prioritise halving the deficit over four years. That is why we are asking for pay restraint in the public sector, starting with public service leaders, whom we are asking to take a pay freeze next year.
On the Government’s proposal to tax banks’ bonus remuneration, are the Government yet in a position to say which of the 192 regulated banks it will apply to; what the main exempted categories are, be they shares or contractual agreements; and, as it will take a long time to suss out the difficult avoidance possibilities, whether they have ruled out the possibility of extending the policy into the next financial year?
I understand that the draft guidance has been published. The proposals that we have introduced are designed to bite on banking groups, but we remain open to the possibility of extending the legislation and the tax if the avoidance measures that some have talked about are put into practice.
But does the Minister not agree that one of the important pieces of unfinished business is the largely taxpayer-owned £1.5 billion bonus pool in RBS? As the board of directors publicly defied the Government over that matter, do the Government propose to take any further action, either by replacing those directors or by giving them fresh instructions about how to deal with that bonus pool?
RBS is a bank in which we exercise a certain degree of influence over remuneration policies—but the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that its management have not yet made proposals for a bonus pool.
If my right hon. Friend undertakes the research that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) suggested, will he look back to 1979 and see how pay levels have changed since then? Will he look in particular at how the take-home incomes of the richest have been affected by the massive tax cuts for the rich that the Tories introduced at the time?
Of course.
Banks (Penalty Charges)
The Government announced in the pre-Budget report on 9 December that they would work with consumer groups, the Office of Fair Trading and the banks to agree a new framework that will make bank charges fairer, simpler and more transparent. The Government will take action to deliver change if a voluntary approach does not result in a fair outcome for consumers.
I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply. She was given a fairly broad hint by the judgment of Lord Walker in the case of Abbey National and others, when he said that his decision was
“not the end of the matter,”
and that
“Ministers and Parliament may wish to consider the matter further.”
What can she do to review the operation of section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which requires fairness in the contractual relationship between banks and customers?
The Office of Fair Trading is still considering that judgment in detail, and on 22 December it intends to make an announcement about what further action will be taken. Our position is very clear: we want to see a fairer and more transparent system of charges, and we are working very closely with the OFT to achieve that.
I welcome the Government’s decision to stop unrequested credit card cheques being sent to consumers, but I urge the Minister also to consider unrequested credit card limits. That is of great concern to consumer organisations and very detrimental to the most vulnerable consumers.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has a long record of standing up for the consumer in such matters. We were very pleased to be able to introduce measures to stop the practice of unrequested credit card cheques, and we continuously keep under review how we can best protect our most vulnerable people.
Financial Services (Regulation)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has regular discussions with European Finance Ministers on EU regulation of financial services, most recently at the ECOFIN meeting on 2 December.
Government complacency has seen the role of Commissioner for Internal Market and Services go to France, and France and Germany have outmanoeuvred the Government on the alternative investment fund managers directive. Have the Government learned a lesson and put in place a new procedure to ensure early engagement over the proposals for regulation of the financial services industry?
I disagree. It is not the case that we have not been engaged early in all the processes. The Chancellor and our other Ministers have actively and successfully engaged in the EU agenda, both directly in the EU and within the G20, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue. With the allies that we have in the EU and the European Parliament, we can do that; I am afraid I cannot say the same for the official Opposition party.
Earlier this year, the Chancellor was thinking aloud about the potential of an independent macro-prudential early warning system linking the Bank of England to European central banks, and a single micro-prudential rule-making body. Can the Minister say what the state of play is in terms of those developments?
Our position is very clear: we do think that we need an EU-wide system to protect financial stability. We are also very clear that that EU-wide system should not have any impact on our fiscal responsibilities. As a result of the discussions at the ECOFIN meeting, we have now secured the fiscal safeguard that we were seeking.
In June the Chancellor said that he was determined to block the moves to force the UK taxpayer to foot the bill for decisions made by the new European supervisory authorities. However, is not the reality that the Chancellor lost that battle in December’s ECOFIN meeting? None of the safeguards that he or the Exchequer Secretary talked about amount to a veto to protect national sovereignty and national taxpayers.
I absolutely disagree. In the negotiations, we secured the fiscal safeguard that our Chancellor went out there for, and which I brought to the House when we had the debate the day before.
Comprehensive Spending Review
Departmental budgets are set until April 2011. As the Chancellor made clear in his statement, now would not be the time for a spending review, given the uncertainties that remain in the world economy.
But as the Minister will recognise, last week the Chancellor predicted the economic growth for next year, so will he pledge to publish the comprehensive spending review results before next year’s general election?
I think that the Chancellor’s judgment on that will depend entirely on the uncertainty that we see at the time in the international economy.
Does the Minister not agree that there is a need right across the United Kingdom for certainty as we look forward into 2010 and beyond, not just for the next 12 months but for a period comparable to that covered by a CSR?
If the Chancellor had set out a spending review earlier this year, for example, it would have been pretty likely that those figures and settlements would have had to be revised, as unemployment turned out to be far lower than we initially expected. Indeed, today the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is setting out the argument for the kind of savings that could be achieved on the welfare bill if, as we hope, unemployment is much lower than it might have been over the next few years. Until that certainty is acquired, it would be wrong to set out to the last pound and the last penny what each individual Department should get. We are very clear that halving the deficit over four years is in the right time frame. Halving it any faster—over three years, for example—would involve taking £26 billion out of public spending. That would mean, for example, putting about 5p on VAT, or halving the education budget.
Since last week’s pre-Budget report we have learned that the Treasury itself does not believe that the Government’s spending plans provide a credible route to restoring our public finances, and that the Schools Secretary was still wringing concessions out of the Treasury after the Chancellor went to bed on Tuesday night. Is it not now clear that even if the Treasury Ministers recognise the scale of the fiscal crisis, they are too weak to do anything about it?
I am sure there must have been a question lurking in there somewhere. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything he reads in the newspapers. What the Chancellor did last week was set out a clear plan for how we can halve the deficit over four years. It is pretty much the fastest consolidation plan in the G7, and it is also the clearest. We stand by the judgment that four years is the right period over which to halve the deficit. Of course there are people who have advised us to take a different direction and halve the deficit over three years, which would involve some pretty difficult judgments. That is the policy advocated by the Opposition, but they have not yet said whether they would put up VAT by 5p or halve the education budget. Is that because they do not know, or because they will not say?
UK Budget Deficit
In common with that of other G20 countries, UK fiscal policy will continue to support businesses and families until the recovery is secure.
Does not the fact that Britain’s deficit is larger than that of Greece, which has had its credit rating downgraded, mean that we urgently need to get our finances in order and keep interest rates low so that we can get Britain growing again?
We have seen an unprecedented global downturn, and the debt is going up in all the G7 countries as well as other countries. Of course UK debt was low at the beginning, giving us extra fiscal space, as the International Monetary Fund has pointed out. The additional support that we have provided has meant fewer jobs lost, fewer business failures, fewer homes repossessed and less damage to the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has explained, we will now halve the deficit over the next four years and so secure the public finances.
Is not the most important thing the fact that we have a deficit reduction plan, so that we can keep money in the economy, get through the recession and keep up front-line spending, particularly on health services? In Stoke-on-Trent we need the Haywood hospital and we need our schools, and we do not need the deficit.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital that we have a plan—as we do—and that we can show how we will continue to live within our means while also providing the investment that her constituency and the public services need. We must also continue to support the economy, given the uncertainty that is still around. The Opposition made the wrong call on the banking crisis and the wrong call on the recession, and now they are making the wrong call on the recovery as well.
UK Credit Rating
We follow the assessments of the credit rating agencies closely. Moody’s restated last week that the UK is a resilient triple A sovereign. Standard and Poor’s reaffirmed the UK’s triple A rating in May, and Fitch did so in July.
The Minister must recognise what terrible financial damage, and loss of prestige to our country, would result if our rating were lowered. How confident is he that our triple A rating will not be lowered over the next six months?
It is important that all three major agencies assign us a triple A rating. As I said, Moody’s reaffirmed its rating just last week. It clearly helps that we went—[Interruption.]
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but there are a lot of private conversations taking place in the Chamber, and it is very unfair both to the Member—[Interruption.] Order. Mr. Fabricant, you know a lot better than that. I know where to look, and I do not require your help. Private conversation is very unfair on the Member asking the question and on the Minister answering it, and I think it would probably be regarded by members of the public as rather rude.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It does help that we went into the recession with low debt, as was underlined in the Moody’s note of 26 October. It is also important that we have the plan that we have set out for halving the deficit over the next four years. That is the responsible approach.
Bank Recapitalisation
Since the events of last October, the Government have acted decisively and comprehensively to support the stabilisation of the banking system and protect depositors. The recent entry of the Royal Bank of Scotland into the asset protection scheme on terms that improve incentives and deliver better risk sharing with the private sector, as well as Lloyds Banking Group’s private capital raising, means that banks are better capitalised and better positioned today to support the economy in its recovery.
Is the Minister aware of the National Audit Office report that says that neither Lloyds nor the Royal Bank of Scotland are meeting targets for lending to business? Bearing in mind that small and medium-sized enterprises in particular need the oxygen of available credit, what action is he taking to ensure that those two banks meet one of the objectives of re-capitalisation following the huge input of taxpayers’ money?
I am certainly aware of the NAO’s report—a couple of questions on the Order Paper cover the same matter. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the situation is that RBS and Lloyds banking group have made significant strides in improving lending to SMEs. However, a lot of small and big businesses have been paying down debt during this recession, which is why the net lending figures do not look so promising. The banks have signed lending commitments, which are binding, and we expect them to keep to them. We continue to monitor the issue very closely.
Banks (Government Support)
The Government welcome the National Audit Office’s recent report, and particularly its conclusion that the support that we have provided to the banks was justified. We will consider the report and respond in the normal way.
I am sure that that response will make very interesting reading, but perhaps the Minister will explain why the Treasury gave a clean bill of health to the Royal Bank of Scotland just weeks before the bail-out.
It is my understanding that the Treasury did no such thing. We will obviously respond to the report in detail in due course, but I should like to quote paragraph 19 to the hon. Gentleman:
“If the support measures had not been put in place, the scale of the economic and social costs if one or more major UK banks had collapsed is difficult to envision. The support provided to the banks was therefore”
clearly “justified”.
Economic Growth
The pre-Budget report forecast that UK gross domestic product will have fallen by 4.75 per cent. in 2009 and will recover to 1 to 1.5 per cent. growth in 2010. The report did not forecast what will happen in other G20 economies, but world GDP is expected to contract by 1 per cent. this year, then to grow by 3.25 per cent. in 2010.
I am grateful to the Minister for those numbers. Given that we are the only G20 country still in recession, he will have to forgive us for not taking his forecast for granted. However, given that over the next couple of years, between pre-crash and post-crash levels, the level of debt in this country will have doubled—in fact, the rise in the debt will be third only to Iceland and Ireland—is the Minister not concerned that our growth levels will be much lower as a result? That will be a dangerous situation for everyone who lives in this country.
Let me first of all reassure the hon. Gentleman about our forecast. We said at the time of the Budget that we forecast 1 to 1.5 per cent. growth in 2010. At that time, most people, including the Opposition, said that that was much too optimistic. Today, however, the consensus has caught up with the forecast that we set out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that vindication of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s forecast.
Right across the world, countries are borrowing more, which is the right thing to do. The stimulus that we provided has reduced uncertainty and helped to prevent a spiral of falling confidence and demand. That is why the impact of this unprecedented global shock has been so much less in the UK than many expected. If we had taken the advice of the Conservatives and let the recession take its toll, the damage and the long-term cost to the economy would have been far greater.
I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that in certain sectors, there is potential for growth, and those are the ones that the Government need to invest in. I am thinking particularly of so-called green jobs. Intelligent Energy in my constituency is growing as a consequence of not only Government investment but investment from the private sector. That will deliver on jobs, but also from an environmental point of view in, for example, hydrogen fuel cells. Will he ensure that all Government aid is targeted at those future job growth areas, where we will make a significant impact on UK plc?
My hon. Friend is right, and I very much enjoyed my visit to Intelligent Energy as his guest a few years ago. Our “New industry, new jobs” strategy is targeting those parts of the economy with the biggest growth potential—for example, green jobs and the digital sector—and ensuring that we have the wherewithal to do well in the future in those sectors.
Comprehensive Spending Review
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.
Yes, but does he not think that the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) bears all the credibility of that of the Prime Minister when, two years ago, he said that his decision not to hold a general election had nothing to do with the fact that the polls were so bad?
Even the hon. Gentleman would admit that there remains a degree of uncertainty in the international economy. We need only look at events in Dubai and the Gulf to see the kind of instability that persists. Indeed, we are only halfway through the measures agreed at the G20 in London, so we are by no means out of the woods yet. Recovery is not guaranteed, and we cannot know how much we should allocate for welfare benefits. Therefore, it is difficult to pin down to the last pound and penny how much each individual Department should have. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out one of the clearest deficit reduction plans in the G7. We set out our priorities for the year to come, including some £15 billion of cuts and efficiencies in lower priority programmes. What we have yet to see is any plan of sufficient clarity from the Opposition.
Youth Unemployment
Treasury Ministers and officials receive representations from a wide range of organisations, including on the issue raised by my hon. Friend. We are taking action to ensure that young people are supported through this recession. As he will be aware, this includes a guaranteed job, work experience or training for those young people who remain unemployed for more than six months. That will ensure that we avoid the long-term detachment of young people from the labour market that was such a feature of previous recessions.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he taken note of the recent International Monetary Fund “World Economic Outlook” report, which makes it clear that the fiscal stimulus should be continued next year until recovery is on a firmer footing? What assessment would he make of the effects on youth unemployment if deficit reduction replaced going for economic growth as the main aim of economic policy, as some in this House would prefer?
My hon. Friend is right. The judgment that the Chancellor made at the time of the pre-Budget report was that we needed to take action to secure sustainable public finances, but we needed to do so in a way that did not jeopardise the recovery. That is why we are planning to halve the deficit over four years. That action, as opposed to the more precipitate action that the Opposition prefer, will give us the best chance of ensuring that we have a sustainable economic recovery and can address youth unemployment.
If the Government’s policies are working so well, why is unemployment in Wellingborough more than double what it was in 1997?
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we have been going through a recession in the UK, just like most countries around the world. That has obviously had an effect on unemployment, and that is very regrettable. However, the active labour market policies that this Government have introduced have been highly successful in getting people back to work. Youth unemployment continues to be a problem, but more than half of people leave jobseeker’s allowance within three months, and three quarters do so within six months. That is as a result of the programme of policies that we have put in place.
Public Services
The combined action of the Bank of England and the Government is supporting up to half a million jobs at the moment. The Government believe that, as there are still risks to the economy, it would be risky to consolidate too quickly.
The Government have done a lot to try to help young people during the recession, particularly with the guarantee of a job or training after six months of unemployment. Does the Chief Secretary agree that any attempt to reduce spending immediately would scupper the chances of economic recovery and impact in particular on young people coming into the jobs market?
There are those who believe that we ought to be cutting public spending faster, even now, before recovery has been locked in. We think that that would be a risk and that the price would be paid in higher unemployment and more repossessions. That is why last week the Chancellor set out further measures to help to combat youth unemployment and why we think that the right approach is to say to our young people that if they have been out of work for six months they will be offered a job, a place in training or, of course, community service.
What does the Minister think of the work by the International Monetary Fund showing conclusively that the higher the proportion of public spending in an economy, the slower the growth rate?
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at other economies in the OECD or the G7, he will see that the levels of debt forecast among them are pretty much in line with our own. This recession has hit us all. However, we are probably the country that has set out the clearest plan to halve that deficit over the next four years.
Topical Questions
The Treasury’s responsibilities remain as I have set out on previous occasions.
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the present difficulties in investment levels in key driving areas. How does he intend to co-operate with the CBI and the TUC to try to maintain the recent excellent progress?
It is very important that we do everything possible to get a return of private sector investment in the economy. The public sector has been supporting the economy, particularly through public expenditure, over the past year or so. We can continue that until recovery is established, but part of getting recovery established and achieving growth in the future must be to get private investment going again.
No, I do not, although I am aware of the concern on this issue. We are putting furnished holiday lettings and bed-and-breakfast accommodation on a level playing field. However, a query has been raised, for perfectly understandable reasons, about the legality in European law of providing help to furnished holiday letting accommodation purely in the UK and not elsewhere in Europe. It is very important that we comply with international law.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we encourage people back into work, and as part of that, we must ensure that if people do go back into work, they can see the benefit of it. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will make a statement shortly, and I hope that she will have something further to say about that. However, my hon. Friend is right to emphasise that job vacancies are being advertised everyday. It is our job to ensure that we get people to fill those vacancies as quickly as possible.
In relation to the bank payroll tax, we are trying to change the behaviour of some banks that still want to pay out very large sums in bonuses when we believe that the money would be better applied to building up their capital position. Of course, from next April, people earning more than £150,000 a year—that will include many recipients of these bonuses—will pay tax at the top rate of 50p. In addition, the hon. Lady asked about national insurance. I made the position clear last week. In particular, I made the point that people earning less than £20,000 would not be paying more as a result of the measures that I introduced.
We have invested a considerable amount of money in the railway system in the west midlands. The upgrading of the west coast main line cost between £7 billion and £8 billion, and has meant more services and, above all, more reliable services than in the past. That is an example of what happens when public investment is run down, because that line last had serious investment in the 1970s. We have put that right and we will continue to do what is necessary to ensure that the railways work.
Has the Chancellor seen the helpful comments of the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), with whom he used to sit in the Cabinet, who said yesterday:
“the reason why this Pre-Budget Report has been so disappointing is that the Prime Minister used his constitutional authority as First Lord of the Treasury to ensure that no full account of our economic predicament was provided, no systematic reform of banking was promoted and no clear account of Labour’s approach to closing the fiscal deficit was made”?
The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Schools Secretary overruled the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sofa government is alive and well, in the form of a Chancellor who bears the impression of the last person who sat on him. Will he take this opportunity to demonstrate his independence and publish the overall departmental spending limit—not for the individual Departments; the overall number, which was leaked by us after the Budget and which he now has an opportunity to publish—after this pre-Budget report? Just answer that question, on the third time of asking.
I did see the article by my right hon. Friend. It is fair to say that he has had his disagreements with the Prime Minister over some considerable time; there does not seem to be anything new there. In relation to the departmental expenditure limits, I made the position clear earlier, and I have nothing further to add to that.
Yes, indeed we have. If we had repeated the experience of the 1990s recession, we would have expected something in the region of two and a half times as many businesses becoming insolvent as have actually done so. The action that we have taken—through the business payment support service, the time-to-pay initiative, the enterprise finance guarantee and other measures that we have taken—has had a genuine impact. There is a distinction to be made between a Government who have provided real help now to businesses through this recession and a Government who, during the 1990s, did nothing and just let companies go to the wall.
I am not sure that I recognise those figures, although I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as we have the final figures. However, there is a broader point to be made in relation to Dunfermline building society. It would have been nice if we had not been put in that position in the first place, but unfortunately that building society got itself into difficulties and they had to be resolved. That is precisely what we did. Both the hon. Gentleman and I would have liked the Dunfermline to continue as an independent building society. That was not possible, but the reason was that it got itself into difficulties and we had to sort the problems out.
Can we follow the lead of other European countries and introduce a cap on interest rates for the likes of store cards? People will be using store cards over the next few weeks in the run-up to Christmas. If someone spends £1,000, it will take them 15 years to clear that if they simply pay the minimum. That is totally unacceptable.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a problem with the high rates of interest charged by some lenders, particularly to vulnerable people. I am aware that some other EU countries have introduced interest rate caps. However, the evidence from those countries is that introducing a cap has not resolved the problem, as the institutions have got round it by introducing other charges. However, we are still reviewing the position with the Office of Fair Trading.
Given the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Wales of a floor for devolved spending in Wales relative to England, are the Government guaranteeing, at least as far as Wales is concerned, that they are banishing the Barnett squeeze?
The position in relation to the Barnett formula is that it continues to be the Government’s policy, and it is the basis on which allocations will be made to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Over the past 10 or 12 years, Wales has benefited from the increase in public expenditure right across the piece.
This is a difficult time of year for many small and medium-sized businesses in the UK, with holiday closedowns, holiday pay, and so on. What more can the Government do to improve the payment methods used by UK companies to encourage them to pay their suppliers more quickly?
We have introduced a number of measures that will help businesses. One of the most effective has been the time-to-pay regulations, which mean that businesses can stagger their payments of tax. That has eased their cash flow. It has also meant that 95 per cent. of the undertakings have been met, which benefits the Revenue as well. In addition, we have provided guarantees for loans, which have benefited firms in Scotland, and tax credits have meant that many people’s income has been supplemented by as much as £37 a week as a result of what we have been able to do.
This is something that we keep under close review. I am well aware that we need to ensure that the larger banks—particularly the two in which we have substantial shareholdings—do not behave in a way that is detrimental to the smaller building societies. This is something that we, along with the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading, will continue to keep a close eye on.
This is a difficult time for savers, and they are not being helped by the practice of banks that market savings accounts with a bonus attached to them without telling the savers when the bonus is going to fall away. Could we not require banks to provide that information?
I am very much in favour of making more information available to savers—and, indeed, to borrowers—so that they can understand exactly what the terms and conditions are. I agree with my hon. Friend that, at times, those terms and conditions are not as clear as they should be. We want more people to save, and the best way to achieve that is to be very clear and up front about what the saver will get and when they will get it.
Can the Chancellor confirm that the Treasury completely ignored warnings from the Department for Communities and Local Government last autumn about the impact of the rise in business rates on the economy?
I only heard part of what the hon. Lady said, but what I can say—which will probably not satisfy her—is that we announced measures earlier this year to allow companies to spread the rates increase over three years, to ease the burden on them.
In the aftermath of the pre-Budget report, and given the importance that Members of Parliament in Stoke-on-Trent attach to the relocation of jobs from the south-east, what advice can my right hon. Friend give to people in Stoke-on-Trent on how to ensure that we can get such jobs relocated there?
Over the past few years, we have moved something like 24,000 jobs out of London and the south-east. Just before the pre-Budget report, we said that we would seek to move another 13,000 out over the next few years. I would be very happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and other colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent to talk about how we can maximise Stoke-on-Trent’s chances of getting a big share of those new jobs.
It is understandable that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about debt, and I can tell him that the debt would have been very much higher had we not taken the action that we did to support our economy and to ensure that we got through the recession. Otherwise, the amount of borrowing and debt would have been far greater.
Despite the cheaper pound and rising house prices, stalled industrial output is still holding the economy back. Will the Chancellor tell the House what progress has been made on his plan to diversify the economy away from the financial services sector?
In the pre-Budget report last week, I set out a number of measures to encourage low-carbon industries and to encourage business generally. It is important that we have a diverse economy. The research and development tax credits and the reduced rate of corporation tax for firms that patent discoveries in this country and then develop them here are part of a range of measures all designed to make sure that we have a more diverse economy in the future. In the 1980s, rather too many firms went under and rather too many sectors were badly damaged: we cannot afford to repeat that mistake.
At some stage in the relatively near future, the Chancellor will receive a welcome windfall from the auction of the spectrum release by the digital dividend process, so will he honour the pledge given to users of radio microphones in the “Digital Britain” White Paper and earmark at least a small proportion of those significant revenues fully to compensate those users for their unwelcome eviction from the spectrum?
The Government are in discussion, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, with those who represent that particular interest. We recognise the importance of it and we are looking to see what we can do to help.
Future Defence Programme
I am announcing today changes to the defence programme, which will enhance the support to our personnel on operations in Afghanistan, worth £900 million over the next three years, and reductions elsewhere to make these enhancements affordable and to match our expenditure against available resources. In doing so, I have made every effort to ensure that we balance the priority of supporting our forces in Afghanistan with our commitment to maintaining the capabilities necessary for the future, and that we do not take decisions on major changes that should properly be made in next year’s defence review.
As I have said repeatedly to the House, support for our operations in Afghanistan is our main effort. I saw for myself last week the contribution being made by our forces across Afghanistan—taking on the Taliban and beginning to train and partner with the Afghan national army. I pay tribute to their bravery, their professionalism and their dedication.
The defence budget has had the longest period of sustained real growth since the 1980s: it is now £35.4 billion—over 10 per cent. more in real terms than in 1997. As the Chancellor confirmed at the pre-Budget report last week, not a single penny is being cut from the defence budget in 2010-11, but despite this significant investment, acute cost pressures remain. There are a number of reasons for this, including rising fuel and utility costs, increases in pay and pensions and, above all, cost growth in the equipment programme. A number of major projects, while providing superb military capability, have cost more than twice their initial estimate in real terms.
All of this presents us with a significant challenge both in this financial year and as we look forward. The National Audit Office’s “Ministry of Defence: Major Projects Report 2009”, published today, describes the result of these pressures. Going forward, I am determined that we take action to deal with these pressures and to address the challenges head on. That is why we commissioned the hard-hitting Bernard Gray report, why we are taking steps now to implement his report and why we are reforming defence acquisition better to match our priorities to our spending. Getting this right is critical; tough choices are required. We will be publishing in the new year the strategy that will provide a planning and management framework to produce an affordable equipment plan.
I am determined to ensure that those who put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf remain properly supported and resourced. Our priorities in Afghanistan are to provide the best levels of personal equipment and protection to meet the fast-changing threat and to increase investment in key capabilities, including helicopter capability and our strategic air bridge.
I am therefore pleased to announce a number of capability enhancements to support the mission in Afghanistan. They are in addition to the operational costs paid for from the reserve, which continues to increase year on year and has risen from £738 million in 2006-07, when we deployed to Helmand, to over £3.7 billion this year. By the end of 2009-10, the reserve will have contributed over £14 billion to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including some £5.2 billion on urgent operational requirements.
My decision to fund these enhancements from the core defence programme reflects our determination to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is supporting the current campaign, and our belief that we expect such capabilities to feature in a range of future conflicts that our forces may face. The enhancements total £900 million over three years. They include an improved dismounted close combat equipment package, making equipment such as state-of-the-art body armour and night vision goggles available to 50 per cent. more troops so they can train with it not only before deploying to Afghanistan but before they embark on pre-deployment training; more Bowman tactical radios and patrol satellite systems to improve communications between troops and commanders; an additional £80 million for communications facilities for special forces; increased funding for our intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities; and a doubling of Reaper capability.
As the Prime Minister announced yesterday, there will be further improvements in our counter-IED capabilities, particularly intelligence and analytical capability to target the networks that are doing so much damage to our troops and to Afghan civilians. There will be an additional C-17 aircraft to strengthen the air bridge, and improvements to defensive aids suites and support arrangements for the Hercules C130J fleet so that we can maximise their deployability and use. There will be 22 new Chinook helicopters, with the first 10 arriving during 2012-13, as set out in the future rotary wing strategy which I also announced today.
In addition to that package, the Treasury has signed off the latest funding from the reserve—over £280 million—to support a range of additional equipment for Afghanistan. It will include more new vehicles—for instance, there will be a 31 per cent. increase in the number of Husky tactical support vehicles and a 40 per cent. increase in the number of Jackal fire support vehicles for deployment in Afghanistan—and additional equipment to combat the threat of improvised explosive devices, including over 400 hand-held mine detectors, robots, and other items of kit. That one-off package is in addition to the resources already allocated for urgent operational requirements for the current financial year, and in addition to the protected mobility package that has already been announced.
The pressure on the public finances means that we need to prioritise carefully within our resources. We need to make reductions in lower priority areas to fund these enhancements, and to better match the defence programme to available resources. That has meant stopping or slowing spending in other areas, and pushing down hard on headquarters costs and overheads. Inevitably these measures will have an impact on some capabilities, but we judge that it will be manageable.
We will continue to reduce the number of civilians working in the Ministry of Defence. We recognise the importance of the civilian work force and the critical outputs that they deliver. That is why in the pre-Budget report we announced an independent study of the shape and size of the civilian work force, including the distribution of tasks between civilian and military personnel. This study will be undertaken by Gerry Grimstone and will inform the defence review. Without prejudicing its outcome, we would expect to be able to continue reducing the overall size of the civilian work force, above the 45,000 reduction already made since 1997. This is not just about doing more with less; we will need to make some hard decisions about what we can stop doing altogether, and about how we can bear down on other costs.
The other key adjustments we are making to the current programme are as follows. In line with our current aspirations to reduce to two fast jet types—the Typhoon and joint strike fighter—we will pursue without delay the Typhoon future capability programme phase 2. This is fundamental to the development of its multi-role capability and integration with the latest weapons. We will reduce now the size of our Harrier fast jet force by one squadron, close RAF Cottesmore and consolidate the Harrier force at RAF Wittering. This will maintain our joint carrier-based combat air capability. We plan to reduce our Tornado and Harrier force by a further one or two squadrons; decisions on the make-up of our future force will be taken in the defence review.
We intend to withdraw the Nimrod MR2 force 12 months early and slow the introduction of the MRA4. This will have an impact on our use of RAF Kinloss, but there is no change to our assumptions on the future basing of the MRA4 at this stage. The decision to withdraw the MR2 has been taken for financial reasons and is unconnected to the report by Mr. Haddon-Cave on the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of the Nimrod XV230 in Afghanistan. Mr. Haddon-Cave was very clear in his report that the aircraft remains safe to fly. I will make a further statement on Mr. Haddon-Cave’s report in the House tomorrow.
We intend temporarily to reduce some aspects of Army training that are not required for current operations. We will also take one survey ship and one minehunter out of service early, and cancel the current competition for unprotected utility vehicles and defer the programme for two years. We will bring forward the planned reduction in some of the older maritime Lynx and Merlin Mk 1 aircraft prior to the transition to the more capable Wildcat and Merlin Mk 2. We will spend less next year than previously planned on the wider defence estate but will continue to prioritise investment in both service family accommodation and single living accommodation.
The measures I have set out will also have implications for service personnel numbers. The details have not yet been finalised, but the emphasis will be on prioritising our manpower for operations in Afghanistan. Changes will be targeted so as to avoid affecting personnel involved in current operations. Reductions in service personnel numbers will mainly be managed by slowing recruitment and releasing some personnel, in accordance with their contracts. I appreciate that these changes will be difficult for many service and civilian personnel, their families and the communities in which they are based. I am fully aware of the consequences, and we will support those affected.
In making these choices, I have had to consider that the Government and the Opposition parties are committed to carrying out a defence review after the next election. A Green Paper explaining the Government’s vision of what that review should encompass will be published early in the new year. The measures reflect our stated priority of support for the Afghan campaign, and continued investment in new capabilities with enduring military benefit. This is a difficult balance to strike, but I am confident that we have got that balance right, and that that will be demonstrated where it matters most: on the front line, where our brave servicemen and women, supported by MOD civilians, are fighting for the future of Afghanistan and the security of our own country.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior sight of it, although we read much of it this morning in the media. It is hard not to feel some sympathy for the Secretary of State, whom I know to be personally very committed to our armed forces. However, despite the sweeteners, making cuts to our wider defence capability when we are fighting a war in Afghanistan only strengthens the perception that we have a Government who do not give a high priority to the armed forces.
The Government who were willing to waste £12.4 billion on a pointless VAT cut when they had to salvage their own reputation do not seem to have the same resolve when it comes to the country’s national security. The Ministry of Defence’s internal instructions were clear: allow for standing military tasks and do not prejudge the strategic defence review; and there is to be no capability removal but some shaving off. In other words, this is about numbers not fleets.
What will be the effect of the pre-Budget report on the MOD’s core budget, given that the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that non-protected Departments in the settlement will have to bear cuts of 16 per cent. over three years? By how much does it increase the £6 billion black hole highlighted in the Gray report? Is it true that the new Chinook aircraft will be funded from the cancellation of the future medium capability helicopter programme, not from savings arising from cuts in the RAF’s Tornado and Harrier fleets? If so, where has the £1 billion of savings from those cuts gone? What impact will the reduction in Tornado and Harrier squadrons have on the RAF force elements readiness strategy? What does the Secretary of State mean when he says that decisions on the make-up of our future forces will be taken later? Does the Treasury intend further cuts? Although more Chinooks will be welcome, we have to accept that we will not get them until 2013—12 years after we went to Afghanistan. Does that not indicate the sheer stupidity of the Government’s decision to cut the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion in 2004? When we get the new Chinooks, will they have a standard US army fit or will they incorporate the Thales Julius cockpit upgrade being applied to current RAF aircraft?
How will our submarines be protected following the withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 next spring? How will the requirement for long-range rescue and maritime reconnaissance be provided once the Nimrods are gone? What aspects of Army training does the Secretary of State intend to reduce? Will he be specific about that? What implications does his statement have for the defence training review and RAF St. Athan?
Why are we cutting minehunter capacity when tension in the Gulf is rising? The Secretary of State is well aware that our minehunter capability is one of the capabilities most valued by our US army allies. We need to ensure that we maintain that capacity at a time when there are rising fears and tensions about what Iran intends to do. There is a real possibility of the Gulf being mined, so will he think again about removing a minehunter at an extremely sensitive time? In particular, will he consider the impact that that will have on the confidence of our allies?
There are many questions to be answered. The Secretary of State says nothing about the current carrier status and the possible downgrading of our facilities in Cyprus—again, that has been widely trailed in the media. The important thing for the House to consider is why cuts are being made to our defences at all. This is not about reprioritising spending for Afghanistan. He told us on television at the weekend that the Treasury reserve is paying, mostly, for the extra costs in Afghanistan. The Government say that they have maintained defence spending at about 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product during their time in office, but that is only if spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is included. In other words, by their own definition, they are trying to fight wars on a peacetime budget. Our defences are being cut not as a response to a diminished threat—if anything, the threat is going up out there—or to a reassessment of our strategic needs, or in order to reshape our armed forces. A Government who have had four Defence Secretaries in four years, one of whom was part-time, and no defence review for 11 years are now cutting the capability because of their own catastrophic economic management.
Overspent and over-borrowed, in a worse economic mess than most of our competitors, last out of recession and with a shrinking wealth creation sector, the Prime Minister in his bunker is still living out the fantasy of what a great Chancellor he was, while all the time his Secretaries of State are having to make real cuts to their departmental budgets. This is the end—the final pathetic chapter in the new Labour project. After 12 wasted years, in debt up to our eyeballs, barely able to finance the Government’s borrowing and worried about our credit status, we are now having our national security cut as a consequence. Who is paying for the Government’s incompetence? Our brave armed forces, at least until we get a general election, when the real culprits will pay.
I did explain to the hon. Gentleman—he knows the true facts—that no cuts in our budget are proposed this year. None whatsoever. We have enjoyed a steady rise in the defence budget that has made it 10 per cent. higher in real terms. He says repeatedly—I have heard it before—that we are fighting wars on a peacetime budget, but the Opposition supported our operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan and do not offer a single penny more for defence. He can go round all he likes trying to undo the public statements of the shadow Chancellor by ringing up members of the defence industry and saying, “It won’t really apply,” but the Opposition have to tell one story in public and the same story in private. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) does not offer a single penny more for defence, despite his allegations.
On the withdrawal of Nimrod, I do not take these decisions without consulting the Chief of the Air Staff and the First Sea Lord. Other platforms are capable of providing the maritime patrol responsibilities. They have done so before—they are Merlin and Hercules, and we can meet our obligations with those other platforms. We will continue to support the cost of current operations through the reserve, but it is quite ridiculous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the only thing that ought to pay for anything that is usable in current operations is the reserve. Of course we need Chinook in theatre in Afghanistan, but we will use Chinook elsewhere. Chinook is a considerable uplift in our helicopter capability not only for Afghanistan but for elsewhere, too.
The hon. Gentleman has nothing to complain about. He offers no additional money for defence and he really should stop pretending that he does.
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. Nobody will argue against the new equipment that will go to our front-line troops in Afghanistan and the additional capability that it will give them, but one must inevitably ask some questions about the details. The most eye-catching is the order for 22 new Chinook helicopters, of which the first will arrive in 2012-13. But how many will really arrive in 2013, when will the others get there and how does that fit in with President Obama’s timeline of beginning the withdrawal from July 2011? Would it not have helped if this decision had been taken a good deal earlier? Does this not prove the folly of the 2004 cuts in the helicopter budget?
We will all feel sorry for the Secretary of State because the Treasury has made him come here today, raiding core defence budgets to pay for these additional orders. What sense does it make for these decisions to be taken outwith the strategic context of the strategic defence review, which everybody is signed up to after the election? What will be the additional cost to the long-term defence budgets, and what will be the diminution of our core capability?
In 2001, we entered Afghanistan, and in 2003 we entered Iraq. The fact of the matter is that the fighting has been done on the cheap ever since. It is true that the Treasury has supplied UORs, but the fact of the matter is that the core defence budget has been creaking under the strain of these engagements ever since they began. The Secretary of State and the Ministry have tried to put off painful decisions until after the general election, but today harsh reality has caught up with them.
As I said in my statement, 10 of the 22 Chinooks will become available in the financial year 2012-13. It is all right for Opposition Members to talk about it being too late, but they know that we have doubled the helicopter hours available to our troops in Afghanistan and that there are 79 per cent. more helicopters. We have just put the Merlin into theatre, and the new Chinook capability not only will be greatly welcomed, but will come on top of all the enhancements that we have managed to achieve in the current fleet.
The hon. Gentleman talks about us cutting core capability, but how is providing twice as much Reaper capability in theatre, as we have at present, and providing additional Chinooks cutting core capability? Yes, these decisions are being taken ahead of a strategic defence review, but can he tell me what sensible person believes that ISTAR, unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopter lift in theatre and the kind of strategic airlift capability provided by C-17 are not what will be needed in the future? I do not believe that any of these decisions are cutting across decisions that will quite properly be made as part of a strategic defence review.
rose—
Order. Thirty-two right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As the House knows, there is another statement to follow. I should like, as usual, to accommodate as many Members as possible but, to do so, short questions and—I gently say to the Secretary of State—short answers will be required.
I listened to my right hon. Friend’s statement with interest, and I require reassurance on two quick points. First, will he reassure me that the cut to the minesweeper and survey vessel will not impact on Plymouth and the work carried out there? Secondly, when looking at the defence estate, will he, as I assume that he will, do everything he can to speed up the sale of significant parcels of land that have been hanging around for some time and need to be moved on?
The detail of my proposals has to be worked through, but I will talk to my hon. Friend and any other constituency Member about the consequences of the withdrawal of the minesweeper and the survey vessel. Of course, if there are opportunities to release capital receipts by disposing of land that is not required, we will try to do that as quickly as possible. I know that the city of Plymouth wants us to do that so that reshaping can happen and people can get on with their development plans for the city.
Several of the announcements will be very welcome—not least the wonderful announcement on Chinook, which will fly into and out of the equally wonderful RAF Odiham, which is in my constituency—but others will be less so. Precisely what aspects of Army training will be reduced, and by how much?
We will prioritise the training that is required for current operations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a big shift towards using facilities in Kenya, which are very suitable for current operations. However, we must consider other aspects of Army training, for example regarding Challenger 2 tanks. We will not require the Challenger in Afghanistan because it is not suitable for that theatre. There are therefore reductions that we can make so that we can focus and improve our concentration on, and support for, current operations.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government intend to continue building two aircraft carriers? Furthermore, will he confirm that it is in fact only the Government who are committed to building carriers at all?
We are committed to the carriers. Nothing that I have said today affects the carrier programme in any way. I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend, however, that that does not mean that we can provide the three or four carriers that he has on occasion asked for.
Does the Secretary of State begin to understand the very dangerous precedent that he has created by giving in to the Treasury demand that Afghan expenditure should be funded from the core defence budget and not from the contingency fund? Does he not understand that there is hardly an example in living memory of that being done? How will he resist future demands from the Treasury—and they will come—that Afghan expenditure should be at the expense of the core defence budget itself?
It is right and proper—and the principle remains in place—that the additional costs of our operations in Afghanistan will be paid for out of the reserve and not the core budget. Everything, from the bullets and bombs that are used through to the additional allowances paid to our troops, comes from that source, and will continue to do so. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should not be interested in using the core defence budget on major upgrades, such as a whole new fleet of helicopters? Is he saying that we should not buy anything that is relevant to our current operations out of that budget, but that we should expect the Treasury to buy anything and everything that is usable in theatre in Afghanistan? That really is unsustainable, and I think that he knows it.
This time last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and I had just returned from Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend’s announcement today of enhanced capabilities for our troops in Afghanistan includes many of the things that they were asking for, but I want to ask particularly about close combat. Is he listening to what the front-line troops are saying about how we need to evolve our close-combat gear to give them additional agility and to improve their effectiveness?
Absolutely. I have had, as my hon. Friend will have had, repeated requests from troops. We know that there have been considerable improvements in personal kit and equipment for our operations in theatre, but we want to train as we will be expected to fight. We have enough close-combat equipment to provide for our troops in theatre, and overwhelmingly for their pre-deployment training before they go into theatre, but this package will allow people to get the kit and equipment that they will be using in pre-deployment training and in theatre before they begin their pre-deployment training. They will therefore be able to train with it for longer, and thus be more familiar with it and more capable as a result.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of RAF recruits going through basic training at Halton is due to fall next year, compared with this? Does that imply that the Government expect the RAF to become smaller in size over the next few years?
Our recruitment to all our armed forces has been very effective in the last couple of years, to the point that the Army is now fully manned. The detail of the impact on personnel is yet to be worked out, but I do not envisage the kind of effects that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
I welcome the measures announced by my right hon. Friend, but does he not think that it is time to reflect on whether we can avoid a reduction in non-operational training, for example, by determining whether we will get good value for money from the replacement of Trident?
The Government’s position on the nuclear deterrent is clear. We consulted widely on the White Paper that we published in 2006, and our view has not changed. I do not think that any sensible person would say that we should not prioritise the kind of training needed for the current operations at the expense of lower priorities at this time. We have 9,500 people in theatre and, as we have sadly found out, it is a very dangerous theatre of operation. That has to be our main priority and our main effort.
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, while the deployment of the 22 Chinooks in Afghanistan is much to be welcomed, many of us believe that they should have been ordered many months ago? Does he understand that that omission was culpable and negligent, and that men have died needlessly as a consequence?
As I have said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he stands as a member of a party that supported our operations, yet does not offer and has not offered a single penny more for defence. He has to square that with the kind of comments that he has just made.
Can my right hon. Friend be absolutely confident that there will be no capability gap between our existing aircraft carriers and the deployment of our new carriers as a result of any slippage in the carrier programme?
I know why my hon. Friend asks that question. A statement was made in his Committee this morning. That was an erroneous statement. There is not a problem of a gap. There is an issue of training that we need to look at and of which we are fully aware. We are examining it and mitigating it. There is no gap in the programme between the existing carriers and the future carriers.
Does the Secretary of State understand that many of us believe that he is a victim of the serious misjudgment of the military action against Iraq, compounded by the parsimony of the Treasury? What are the foreign policy and military implications of such a substantial reduction in the offensive capability of the Royal Air Force in advance of a defence review?
There is some £3.5 billion from the Treasury reserve this year—the figure has gone up from £700-odd million in 2006—so if that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls parsimony, they are pretty big figures and they have covered the additional costs of our operations in Afghanistan. When he talks about the effects on the RAF, to some extent the future of the RAF lies with unmanned aerial vehicles, and there is a proposal for a very substantial increase in unmanned aerial vehicles in the package that I am announcing today.
In August two lightly damaged Chinooks—one of them damaged by small arms fire—were destroyed by our own forces because the security situation is so dire that we could not guard them for the 36 hours that it would have taken to lift them to a place of safety. Because of the deteriorating security situation, is it sensible to order more Chinooks that are vulnerable to small arms fire and to surface-to-air missiles?
The Chinook is far, far from a vulnerable aircraft. Those two will be replaced, and the replacements for the two that were damaged in theatre will be paid for by the reserve in line with the principles that underpin what should be paid for by the Treasury reserve and what should come from the core defence budget.
What plans does the Secretary of State have to explain to the British people and to his colleagues in Government the direct relationship between the excellence of Her Majesty’s forces, which comes at a price, the security of this nation in terms of energy, food, water, all the goods that they buy to fill their kitchens and their fridges, their cars and their computers, and the ability of Her Majesty’s forces to have global reach to protect this country, all of which comes at a price worth paying?
The principal vehicle for doing that is the Green Paper that we will publish in the new year, which will raise all those questions, and I hope inform the debate about the future of defence. We have co-operation from all the parties that are part of the defence advisory board that is looking at the Green Paper and should provide a good intellectual underpinning for the strategic defence review that will be necessary and come after the general election.
The whole country will agree that my right hon. Friend has taken the right decision in focusing entirely on the important activity in Afghanistan. He referred to a survey vessel. Will he ensure that in working through the details of the withdrawal of that vessel, there is close integration and discussion with the broader scientific community to make sure that the valuable work that that vessel has done is not lost?
We have to try to maintain oceanic survey capability to the maximum degree that we can, but we have to prioritise our current operation, so the answer to my hon. Friend is yes—of course we will try to look at the detail and make sure that we still have the necessary minimum capability.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the chief of defence materials told the Defence Committee this morning that he is willing to consider building the Chinooks through AgustaWestland under the existing licensing agreement with Boeing. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will instruct his officials actively to explore that option, if it can be done on time and on budget?
I would not turn my back on that option in principle, but, on the costs and the time frame, I do not believe that we will be able to get the Chinook capability via that route. If somebody were able to convince me otherwise, that would be absolutely fine. I can say, though, that in our remodelled helicopter fleet, AgustaWestland will have a very important role. It will still provide two of the four helicopter platforms that we plan to continue into the future—the Merlin and the Lynx Wildcat.
Will the Secretary of State explain why the statement did not include anything about Britain’s nuclear weapons? Would it not have been a good opportunity to announce the cancellation of the Trident replacement programme, thus saving a great deal of money?
The answer to that is: I do not believe that it would be a good idea to make such an announcement, because I do not agree with my hon. Friend.
Most of the capabilities that the Secretary of State has today announced will be sent to Afghanistan have been flagged up over the past year by the military in Afghanistan, as many hon. Members have said. Why has it taken so long for those capabilities actually to come into play? Is it because the Treasury and the Prime Minister delayed them?
It has not taken so long, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we have made repeated announcements of capability uplifts in all kinds of areas. I heard some so-called expert on the television today say, “Why are we only getting IED capability now when we have been in Afghanistan for eight years?” Well, we have not been in Helmand for eight years, and the threat changed. If we care to remember, a couple of years ago the big problem was head-on assaults, small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.
There is an overwhelmingly responsibility on any British Government to protect and support British manufacturing and British jobs. Following the question from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), could I, as joint chair of the Unite parliamentary group, ask what discussions my right hon. Friend has had with AgustaWestland, as part of its strategic defence agreement with the MOD, to build the Chinook helicopter under the existing licence agreement? Will he consider—even at this late stage—a British bid and meet Unite representatives so that they can put forward their case?
I have said that I would not rule out in principle such an option, but in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, where budgets are tight and we need to have that capability as quickly as possible, I am not prepared to enter into an arrangement that delays and increases the cost of those aircraft. I want those Chinooks; I want them as quickly as I can get them; and I want them at an affordable price. I do not think that we are breaking our long-term relationship with AgustaWestland, which will continue to be a major supplier of helicopter capability to us.
The Secretary of State mentioned the cost growth in equipment programmes, and we understand from this morning’s report that the Government delay in pursuing the carrier contracts has caused an uplift in the price of more than £600 million and had knock-on effects on the work forces of Rosyth and Devonport. How is that value for money?
Look, difficult decisions have to be taken in order to prioritise the equipment programme. I heard a Conservative spokesman today describe how things might be different, but the Conservatives would have ordered the carrier, wouldn’t they? They would also surely—or would they?—have prioritised the things that we have prioritised, so if they are going to make the allegation that we did something wrong, they have to be prepared to spell out what they would have done differently, and they have singularly failed to do that.
My friend said a few moments ago that Government policy on Trident had not changed since 2006, but that is incorrect; the Prime Minister has floated the possibility of going down from four boats to three boats. If that were to happen, how much would be saved?
My hon. Friend needs to look at the White Paper, because the possibility of going down from four boats to three boats was floated at the time. I have to say to him that that would not save money in any near year because, as I am sure that he will appreciate, all the costs of the fourth boat come pretty late in the programme.
Given that the Tornado force is being reduced, RAF Marham in my constituency will be affected. The Secretary of State will appreciate that it is an extremely busy base that could not function without its dedicated local staff. What impact assessment have the Government undertaken to assess the effect that the cuts will have on local unemployment and unemployment as a whole?
We will obviously have to look at that. The operation at Marham is particularly impressive—I have been there myself—and we do not want to do anything to undermine the good work that is being done there. However, we have to prioritise the kinds of kit and equipment that are needed for our current operations, and that will lead to a reduction in the number of fast jets that we have. The decision on the breakdown between Harrier and Tornado will have to be taken as part of a strategic defence review. Considerations of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is talking about will of course be part of that evaluation.
The counties of Rutland and Leicestershire will be alarmed at the proposed closure of RAF Cottesmore, which is, inter alia, a significant contributor to the local economy. Will the Secretary of State, as a well-regarded trade unionist in a former life, indicate to the House what plans he has to consult the local work force and, indeed, the wider local community about the impact of this suggested closure?
We will be consulting them through the chain of command, and helping them in any and every way that we can. All I would say to my hon. Friend is that if we are to pay for the kind of enhancements that we need, and that are and should be our priority, there has to be something on the other side of the balance. We will try to help the people affected.
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. He will know that Government statistics show that, since 1997, 9,500 defence jobs have been lost in Scotland, bases have closed, regiments have been amalgamated, and in recent years £4.3 billion less has been spent on defence in Scotland than has been contributed by taxpayers in Scotland—and today the cuts have continued. RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth in my constituency will be significantly affected. The MOD must have worked out the manning and spending implications of today’s announcement. Will the Secretary of State confirm the staffing implications of the announcement for RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth? What are the projected cost savings at both bases? Taking into account the changes in the statement, how many service personnel and civilian MOD staff will be based in Scotland? How much will the defence underspend in Scotland grow by?
All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that if the policies of his party were pursued, short of his policy of independence, there would be massive reductions in MOD-related jobs in Scotland. If he then got his own way on independence, one can only imagine the calamity in terms of the defence footprint north of the border. We are not going to close Kinloss, but obviously Nimrod MR2 activity there will cease, and that will have a significant impact on the levels of activity out of the base.
A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend said to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) that if the Chinooks came in on time and at the right price, he would not turn his back on British workers. Will he agree to meet my hon. Friend, with Unite colleagues, to talk about that issue?
I am prepared to talk to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members at any time, and I had some discussions with the Unite trade union yesterday evening. Within the parameters of what I have said, of course I will talk to my hon. Friend and others.
The Secretary of State deserves respect for taking some very tough decisions that his predecessors should perhaps have taken many years ago. Nevertheless, he said in his statement that from the £900 million to be raided from the core budget, he is funding body armour, night vision goggles, Bowman tactical radios and counter-IED capabilities. By no stretch of the imagination is that justified, because he is raiding future defence capability to fund current operations, which the Treasury should be paying for directly.
The close combat support package needed for our operations in Afghanistan is already in place and being provided, and we have additional capability for pre-deployment training. What the Army would ideally like is that suite of capability right throughout the Army, and this change takes us a step towards that so that it has equipment such as night vision goggles before pre-deployment training. We cannot reasonably ask the reserve to fund that and to re-equip the Army completely.
On behalf of the 2,000-plus workers at the Scotstoun yard in my constituency, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement about the carriers? Can he allay some of my concerns about servicemen and women who come back from Afghanistan or any other theatre, and those who retire? I am concerned that they may not receive the help, financial support and training that they sometimes need when getting back into civilian life. Will he assure me that the cuts will not affect those people?
First, carriers are a very important capability that we remain committed to. With regard to the ongoing welfare needs of our armed forces, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), is looking seriously at how we can enhance the situation and protect people. We take the matter very seriously.
It is a central tenet of military life that time spent in training saves lives on operations, even if that training is of a more generalised nature, as the Secretary of State said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). What precise cut in the training budget is he looking for?
I am looking to maintain all the training necessary, if at all possible. That includes both pre-deployment training for Afghanistan and the kind of training that we undertake in perfectly relevant theatres such as Kenya. There has been an emphasis on Kenya, and therefore we have done less training elsewhere in recent years. We have to give priority to the kind of training that is necessary for our current operations, and that is what we will do.
When will the Secretary of State be in a position to make a statement to the House about the future of HMS Endurance? Is he aware of the debilitating effect that the continuous drift of the carrier programme is having on the work force in Portsmouth dockyard? They were led to believe that dates for the carrier build would be given this year, but they are now going further and further away and jobs are at risk. Is he certain that there will be no further drift in the carrier programme as far as the Government are concerned?
I do not know about “continuous” delays to the carrier programme. As the hon. Gentleman knows and as we have acknowledged, we delayed the programme, but there is not a continuous delay, and there will be no further delay as a result of my statement today. We are cutting steel now for the carriers, so work is progressing. We are still assessing the situation with regard to HMS Endurance.
As recently as 28 October, the Secretary of State came to the House under considerable pressure and claimed that he had attracted some additional ring-fenced money from the Treasury for Territorial Army training. Since then, we have heard of cuts and a lack of finance getting through to the Army Cadet Force, the officer training corps at universities and the TA itself. Will he look into that and confirm that there will be no cuts to the reserves’ training, as he articulated as recently as October?
There are no cuts to the TA in the package announced today.
Will the Secretary of State think again about withdrawing the minehunter from the Gulf? Does he remember the signals that were sent out and what happened when the survey ship Endurance was removed from the south Atlantic?
Of course, I will bear in mind the points made by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). However, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) should not exaggerate the situation. We have minehunters active in the Gulf area, as we have had for a considerable time. They are very valuable assets that a lot of nations appreciate.
The need for this statement and the shambles around the TA statement in October are signs that the management of defence is in the most desperate straits. The price of that is being paid by service personnel as well as by the equipment and training budget. Will the Secretary of State give more details about the reductions in service personnel numbers? The statement says that that will involve “releasing some personnel”, but how many is “some”?
The details are still being worked on, but I find it hard to square the hon. Gentleman’s allegation with an announcement that pushes another £900 million in the direction of our forces deployed in Afghanistan. How on earth can he square what he says with that?
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. He describes helicopters and the strategic air bridge as key capabilities. Can he outline what beneficial difference there will be to troops on the ground within the next two to three years before the first Chinook arrives?
We continue to deploy the Merlin fleet and I believe that there are now five or six Merlin in theatre. They have given us a considerable uplift—we have more than doubled helicopter hours. We will continue to try to be as efficient, and to get as many of our existing helicopters into theatre and as much use from them as we can. Of course, the Chinook will provide yet more in-theatre lift, which will be very valuable. As I have said, we will get 10 of them in the financial year 2012-13. The additional C-17—the seventh—will be a real boon to the strategic airlift, which is so important to getting troops and supplies in and out of theatre.
Nobody is fooled. This announcement is about very serious and possibly savage cuts in our overall defence capabilities, and indeed downgrading our armed forces. That is a direct result of the antipathy towards defence funding and the appalling economic stewardship of the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Secretary of State read the National Audit Office report today that talks about a possible defence deficit of £36 billion in this decade, who did he blame?
There has been a 10 per cent. real-terms increase in the core defence budget since 1997 supplemented by £14 billion for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from the Treasury reserve. Not a single penny has been cut in the defence budget this year, but we are dealing with the pressures that exist and redirecting money towards current operations.
My constituents at RAF Lyneham will no doubt welcome the extra defensive aids suites for their C130Js, and indeed the extra C-17, but it is very hard to imagine how, when they are fully stretched, as they are at the moment, they can possibly get any more out of the very limited C130J fleet. Is it not time that the Secretary of State cancelled the A400M and the ridiculous closure of RAF Lyneham?
I am told that we can get more out of them. Of course, if we have a greater proportion of them fully fitted with defensive aids capability, they will be more deployable. I think we can get more use and more deployability out of the Hercules fleet.
Given the Secretary of State’s answer to an earlier question, how exactly are the Merlin and Hercules going to cover the gap caused by the withdrawal of Nimrod, given the pressure on resources?
The sea rescue capability can be provided, as it has been in the past, by platforms other than the Nimrod. I am told that that can happen and that we can meet all our obligations through the use of other platforms.
Will the new vehicles being deployed to Afghanistan include tracked versions of the Mastiff family of vehicles to provide greater flexibility and manoeuvrability, not least because the Mastiff has saved the lives of hundreds of British service personnel?
We have no plans for a tracked version of Mastiff. The hon. Lady will know that we have almost doubled the number of Mastiffs available to commanders in Afghanistan since August of this year.
Will the Secretary of State now answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) about how hollow this announcement sounds in relation to the announcement in 2004 about a £1.4 billion cut to our helicopter fleet?
The situation in 2004 was very different from the situation today. If the hon. Gentleman recalls, our operations in Iraq had only just begun and we were not even present in southern Afghanistan—[Interruption.] We were not even present in southern Afghanistan. The decision today will be very welcome as an appropriate shift of priorities in favour of current operations.
MOD civilian staff give loyal and long service, which is not always very well paid, in places such as the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency in Bicester in my patch. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that those employees will be properly briefed by the line of command about what will happen to them, and about who will be retained in core functions and who might be at risk of being privatised? There is a lot of uncertainty around, and the very least that is owed to them is that the MOD—as a good employer—should tell them what is happening.
We will seek to do that, and that is in marked contrast to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Woodspring about massive cuts in civilian headcount in the MOD which could, if not properly structured, lead to uniformed staff doing civilian jobs at increased cost, not at a saving. We will look at this, plan properly and consult our staff.
The Secretary of State’s announcement of 22 additional Chinooks will be very welcome, and it gives this House an opportunity to praise the professionalism and skill of the Chinook pilots and their aircrews, who risk their lives day in and day out in Afghanistan. Is the Secretary of State planning to increase the number of pilots and aircrews who fly Chinooks, or will he ask the existing pool to fly more often and make more visits to Afghanistan?
When we commit ourselves to providing increased helicopter lift, we are not committing ourselves just to buying the frames. A lot of work needs to be done in terms of logistics supply, training and the provision of crews for that fleet.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members and congratulate them on their co-operation, because 38 Back Benchers were able to question the Secretary of State, which is a very good record.
Benefit Reform
With permission, I shall make a statement on the Employment White Paper and the consultation document on housing benefit that we are publishing today.
Families across Britain have been affected by the worst global recession in living memory. We made clear last year our commitment to help people through the recession—through wider support for the economy, but through strong active labour market policies too. We set out £5 billion additional investment this year and next to help people back to work. We expanded the help in Jobcentre Plus, and set out funding for 300,000 youth job and training places and more apprenticeships. We also pressed on with welfare reforms to avoid the big increases in inactivity that we saw in past recessions.
The claimant count for November stands at 1.64 million, and we expect it to rise further in the new year. The International Labour Organisation’s measure of unemployment stands at 2.46 million. However, the action that we have taken has made a difference. It has kept unemployment lower than people expected, and lower than in previous recessions too. The claimant count is about 400,000 lower than predicted at the time of the Budget. Employment has not fallen as far as in previous downturns, despite the fact that the overall shock to the economy from the global recession has been greater, and the claimant count currently stands at about 5 per cent., compared with peaks of about 10 per cent. in the 1980s and 1990s.
We need to do more, however. Previous recessions left deep scars, as those hit by long-term unemployment found it hard to get work even once the economy started growing again. In the 1990s, youth unemployment in particular kept rising for more than a year after the recession finished, and in the 1980s it rose for more than four years after the recession ended. At times, 350,000 young people were on the dole for more than a year.
To prevent the recession from leaving permanent scars that could damage young people for many years, we believe that more, not less, help is needed as we move into recovery. We are setting out extra help for young people who have been most heavily affected by the recession. We already provide extra support for young people from day one of their claim, but we will now deliver a youth guarantee of work or training for every young person who has been on the dole for six months.
To deliver that support, we will fund an extra 100,000 youth job and training opportunities, on top of the 300,000 extra youth opportunities we are already funding this year and next. Young people will be required to take up the help on offer as a condition of receiving benefit. That help will include expanding the future jobs fund, which is already supporting thousands of people in jobs that are good for them and their communities—sports coaches, housing officers and jobs in child care and energy efficiency. More jobs are planned, including hundreds of new jobs working with the police in the Met, jobs in the NHS, and jobs developing the national cycle network across the country.
For 16 to 17-year-olds, we are making available further funding to subsidise 5,000 additional apprenticeship places, so that more young people can get invaluable work experience under their belt. We expect youth unemployment to keep increasing in the new year, but our aim is to work with employers across the country, who also need to do their bit to get the youth claimant count falling. We aim to get it falling in the second half of next year.
Older workers also need extra help, so we are announcing today plans to provide tailored support for the over-50s, including help to tackle age discrimination. We will also provide more help for those experiencing repeated short spells of unemployment and expand help from private sector recruitment agencies for professional workers. We also know that lots of people want to start their own business, so we will provide more help and advice to do so from day one of becoming unemployed, with a self-employment credit available from three months of unemployment.
Ninety per cent. of those on jobseeker’s allowance still leave it within 12 months, but for those who become long-term unemployed we are rolling out the innovative flexible new deal through which specialist providers deliver personal help, paid by their results. We will trial new ways to incentivise providers to help the hardest to reach, to ensure that contracts can be delivered in a way that is good value for the taxpayer as well. We are also determined to keep up the pace on welfare reform to pursue our long-term goal of full employment.
This recession has not seen the big increase in inactivity that we saw in the ’80s and ’90s, when the number of people on long-term sickness benefits trebled. Today, the number of people on inactive benefits is about 375,000 lower than in 1997. Many people still need help with skills, finding child care or getting health support to ensure that they can work. Programmes such as the new deal for lone parents and pathways are already providing wide-ranging help to get people back to work. However, we want to go further, not just to help people into jobs but to support them into sustainable employment where they can progress up the skills ladder and balance work and family life.
We will do more to fund travel and child care costs for jobseekers in part-time training and through jobcentres and outreach workers in schools to promote flexible and part-time opportunities for parents and carers. We are reforming and extending the work choice and access to work schemes, and introducing mental health co-ordinators to help thousands of people with mental health conditions back into employment.
We are also setting out further measures to improve skills opportunities, including skills accounts and a single joint budget to help the unemployed between my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. With greater support come greater responsibilities, so from next year we are extending the new work capability assessment for those currently on incapacity benefit. We are also extending jobseeking requirements to lone parents with children aged over seven, but we want to go further, so we will also bring forward requirements for partners of benefit claimants to seek employment.
We are bringing forward a comprehensive package to help people back to work, but we also need to ensure that people are better off in work. The introduction of the national minimum wage and tax credits means that most people see significant gains from moving into work, but we believe that it is right that work should be properly rewarded, so it is now time to introduce a guarantee that people are better off in work. In the longer term, we believe that that could be done through further significant benefit reform, such as a single working age benefit, but in the meantime we will introduce a new better off in work credit, which will guarantee that everyone who moves into work after being on benefit for six months or more will be at least £40 a week better off. We are also increasing the help for carers and parents who can work only for fewer than 16 hours because of their family responsibilities.
The housing benefit consultation also includes proposals to let people keep their full housing benefit payments for three months after moving into work and for setting fixed awards for up to six months to remove some of the uncertainty that comes with going back to work. We are also consulting on removing some of the highest rents that are distorting the system in a way that is unfair.
Lower than expected unemployment is already saving around £10 billion over the next five years on benefit spending alone, compared with Budget plans. It has also saved money within the £5 billion budget for helping people back to work, as fewer people than expected have reached six or 12 months’ unemployment, where the more intensive help is on offer. Those savings now allow us to spend £400 million over the next 18 months—£300 million of it on the young unemployed—to support today’s announcements. That investment is helping families across Britain at a difficult time. It is also supporting young people at the very start of their working lives, keeping up welfare reform at a time when it is more important than ever, and helping the public finances. This Government believe that we need to help people at a tough time. We will not turn our backs on people who lose their jobs. We will keep supporting them, not just in the recession, but in the recovery.
The White Paper and the housing benefit consultation set out a comprehensive package to help people back to work and ensure that they are better off in work. It sets out the next stage of benefit and welfare reform in pursuit of our goal to get 1 million more people in employment over the next five years. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement.
At a time when nearly 2.5 million people are unemployed, and when we have record youth unemployment and a record level of economic inactivity, it is right that every effort should be made to provide help and support to get people back into work or trained and ready for work when the recovery comes. But today’s flagship White Paper from Labour, coming as it does nearly two years after unemployment started rising, is little more than a restatement of previous policies.
Of course, some of those policies are very familiar to us, because they are our policies. More help for young people after six months; flexible employment programmes that give people support based on their needs, not what benefit they are on; reform of pathways to work—all are Conservative policies. Others, of course, are reannouncements of Government policies. A review of housing benefit was first announced in the Budget in 2008 and was due for publication in the first half of 2009. Perhaps the Secretary of State needed time to consider the U-turn that she has now performed on the removal of the £15 payment for people who found lower than average rents. We welcome that move, but does the right hon. Lady agree that, far from setting out far-reaching reform of housing benefit, many of the measures in the consultation simply serve to reverse the mistakes made by the Government’s first attempt at reform with the local housing allowance?
Speaking of the local housing allowance, the impact of the Government’s decision to pay the money directly to the tenant has been families with increased rent arrears and landlords pulling out of the whole system. Indeed, the British Property Federation has said today that an alarming 55.5 per cent. of landlords who responded to a survey that it conducted stated that
“they now refuse to take on LHA tenants due to fears of rent arrears.”
Why will the Government not adopt our policy of letting tenants choose whether the allowance is paid to them or directly to the landlord?
Other policies reannounced today include tougher measures to require the partners of benefit claimants to look for work. That was first announced in a Green Paper in the summer of 2008, then in a White Paper this time last year. It has now been announced yet again in this White Paper. A national roll-out of the better off in work credit was announced in the pre-Budget report, but it was first promised in 2008, and it was due to be introduced in 2009. Now we see from the White Paper that the credit is to be introduced in one region from October 2010, and that it is expected to be available nationally from 2011. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that represents a delay of two years for the introduction of the better off in work credit?
The need for that credit is an admission of failure for the Government, who have been insisting for the past 12 years that people are already better off in work. Will the Secretary of State finally admit that, under Labour, people can still be better off on benefits? Will she confirm that the in-work credit will last for six months and that, after that, those who have received it will once again be worse off in work? Will she also confirm that the increased payment to lone parents in work will be only a trial, and that it will not be available nationally?
Far from improving work incentives, the Prime Minister has made them worse during the recession. Will the Secretary of State confirm that figures hidden in the pre-Budget report reveal that the number of low-income families facing marginal tax rates of over 90 per cent. will have more than doubled during the recession?
I welcome today’s focus on youth unemployment, but does the right hon. Lady agree that the Government are acting on this too late, when nearly 1 million young people are already unemployed? We have pledged to create 400,000 more apprenticeships, training places and work pairings over two years for young people who are out of work, so I welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our approach, and that there is a focus on training and apprenticeships in the White Paper. However, the Government have been downgrading apprenticeships to a level 2 qualification. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many of the new places being created will be apprenticeships at level 3?
In October, we pledged to give all young people real support after six months unemployment, so I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has finally worked out that young people need more help sooner to get into work. We called on her just last week to offer more help for young people after six months, but she refused to do so; the extra help would come after 10 months. Now, however, she has announced that the youth guarantee will be delivered after six months’ unemployment, and that young people will be required to take up the help on offer as a condition of receiving benefit.
However, in describing the new young person’s guarantee, the White Paper states that if someone is still unemployed after six months, they will be offered a job, training or internship, and will be required to take it up
“before they complete ten months on JSA.”
So, for some young people, the extra help will still only come after 10 months. Which is correct: the Secretary of State’s statement or the White Paper? Or is this just another piece of spin designed to gain a headline? For a Government who promised “real help now”, it is not good enough that their flagship policy on youth unemployment will kick in almost two years after the recession began and unemployment first began to rise. Perhaps they were so slow to respond because the Prime Minister still believes that he has abolished youth unemployment.
We have heard some good ideas today—many of them our own—but yet again when we look at the detail we see that they are not big bold plans for reform; they are yet more consultations, pilots and pathfinders. As ever with this Labour Government, we have to judge them on what they do, not on what they say. Youth unemployment is at a record high. One in five young people cannot find a job. Eight million people are economically inactive—another record high. More children are growing up in workless households here than anywhere else in Europe. Now, in the dying days of this Government, they are rushing out a series of policy announcements aimed at grabbing votes as the election looms.
The Labour Government have had 12 years in which to introduce radical welfare reform. They have failed. Why should anyone believe that they will do as they say, when they have done nothing to deal with these problems for so long? The people paying the price are the millions who have been trapped in benefit dependency for years. Their children are growing up in poverty. Their health is suffering. Their self esteem has fallen away. That is the greatest moral failure of this Labour Government, and we will never let them forget it.
The kind response to that would be to suggest that the right hon. Lady does not understand her own policies—and certainly does not understand ours. Let me deal in turn with the points that she raised.
The right hon. Lady talked about the level of youth unemployment. The youth claimant count for Great Britain in October was 462,000. In October 1992, in the last recession, it was 784,000. In October 1985, it was 980,000—more than twice as many young people on the dole as there are today. She says that we should judge her not on what she says, but on what she does, and we would certainly judge the Conservative party on what it did over 18 years in government.
The right hon. Lady said that we are introducing Conservative policies on youth unemployment. Until September, she did not have any policies on youth unemployment. It was only when her noble Friend Lord Freud came up with a few that she had any policies at all. Even at that point, what was her policy for young people who have been unemployed for more than six months? It was not a guarantee of jobs or training—not at all. All she was offering was a bit of private sector help for young people. We are offering guaranteed jobs or training or work, but she would not fund that. She would not support our £5 billion additional investment.
The right hon. Lady’s policy is to oppose and abolish the future jobs fund, which is delivering more than 120,000 job opportunities for young people right across the country. The Conservative party wants to say to those 120,000 young people, “That’s it; your job’s gone.” This Government are increasing the support we give to young people, not just from day one but throughout a young person’s experience of unemployment or inactivity. We believe that they should have more support; we believe that they should have more help; and we are prepared to put more investment into it.
We are prepared to put more investment into offering young people education and training places—for example, through the September guarantee, which is again something that the Conservative party opposes. The Conservatives oppose the extra investment in education and training places; they oppose the job opportunities; they want to turn their backs once again on young people right across the country because they simply do not care enough to be prepared to invest money that is a saving for the future.
The right hon. Lady also talked about the housing benefit measures. I did not hear her welcome proposals to include run-ons, for example, for people on housing benefit who are moving into work. I had hoped that she would support those proposals. We have said that there should be greater choice for tenants, so that their money may be paid to landlords, but we want to consult on whether there should be additional requirements, for example, on landlords to improve the condition of their properties as part of that. For the vast majority of tenants it is a good thing to have their money paid to them directly, as it increases their independence, but we want to look at how we can improve the private rented sector as well.
Let me respond to the points raised about whether people are better off in work. The right hon. Lady will have seen—I hope—from the information that we have put out today that we have already given people big increases in additional support. For a family with one child and one earner in full-time work, the weekly minimum income guaranteed as a result of Government support and the minimum wage has gone up from £182 a week to £309 a week—a 28 per cent. increase. For a couple over 25 in full-time work with no children, the amount has gone up from £117 to £234 —a 50 per cent. real-terms increase.
That is a substantial increase in support for people moving into work, through things such as the minimum wage, which the Conservative party opposed; through tax credits, which the Conservative party opposed; and through additional support for people. We think it right to ensure that there is a guarantee—a nice, clear, simple way of supporting people so that everyone is £40 a week better off. That is on top of the additional support that the Chancellor announced this week for free school meals, which helps in particular families who are concerned about in-work costs.
I have set out today measures that expand support for young people and older people who are unemployed. They are designed to help tackle the unemployment problems that we face, but also to bring unemployment down further and faster than in previous recessions. We believe that active Governments should take such action rather than adopting the approach of the Conservatives, who want to roll back big government, leave people to sink or swim and abandon people to their fate, just as they did in the 1980s and 1990s. We will not allow that to happen again.
My right hon. Friend’s statement will be warmly welcomed in Salford, where we are only too well aware of the real effects of Tory party policies. In the early 1990s, a whole generation was consigned to the scrapheap as a result of those policies.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the measures she has announced will ensure continued support for companies such as B4Box in Salford, which is led by an inspirational woman entrepreneur, and which is providing construction skills and real jobs for a range of young people who would never normally have those chances? It is that enterprise and innovation that these measures will support.
My right hon. Friend is right. She has talked to me, and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, about the company in her constituency which is doing such great work to support young people and give them opportunities. Providing that start in life and that step on the career ladder involves providing training as well as work experience. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be happy to visit my right hon. Friend’s constituency.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for providing me with a copy of her statement. It is a bit of a shopping list, but there are some good things on that shopping list. I am pleased that lone parents may be able to keep more of the wages that they are paid for small part-time jobs. We need to end the dichotomy between work and non-work: there are now far more grey areas, and the encouragement that the statement provides is welcome.
I welcome the small increase in the carer’s earnings allowance. It is probably not enough, but it is a step in the right direction. I also welcome the exploration of fixed housing benefit awards, which must be worth considering, and the U-turn on local housing allowance, an issue that I raised last week during Question Time. It is good that the Government have thought again.
In relation to in-work benefits, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised the significant issue of what would happen after the six-month period. I accept that there will be transitional costs and the early costs of a new job, but I worry about what will happen after six months to someone whose mortgage or rent payments simply cannot be afforded on a modest wage. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she envisages? I understand that there have been pilots. What happened after six months to the people who could not then afford their mortgage payments, and do we need a more sustained way of helping people?
The White Paper proposes that lone parents who are training can receive income support in the summer, but the Welfare Reform Act 2009 provided for the abolition of income support. I am a little hazy about how the two fit together.
The Government are extending the work capability assessment to incapacity benefit recipients. In my view, it is currently having a very damaging effect on people receiving employment and support allowance, many of whom are being shunted on to jobseeker’s allowance when they are not fit for work. The rate at which people are being transferred is much higher than was projected. What appraisal have the Government carried out of the current effect of the assessment, before applying it to a whole new group? I think that the issue will be filling all our postbags in the coming months and years if we do not get it right.
As for the issue of high housing benefit for people in high-rent areas, I can see that this makes a bad newspaper headline, but if—especially in London—people in high-rent areas are shunted into low-rent areas, is there not a risk that family networks that can provide child care will be broken up, that children will be moved from their existing schools, and that ghettoes will be created when everyone in temporary accommodation ends up in bits of London where the rents are cheap? Is that really a good by-product of policy?
Are we doing enough at the outset for the high-risk youth unemployed? Is it not the case that on day one of a claim it is possible to identify the high-risk groups, those with no qualifications and those in high-unemployment areas? In such cases, could we not intervene more intensively on day one?
The White Paper talks of doing more to in jobcentres match people with family-friendly jobs. Many people say to me “When I went to the jobcentre I expected the staff to help me to find a job, but all that they said was ‘There’s the internet’.” Is there not a gap between the rhetoric and the reality? It would be great to think that Jobcentre Plus will match people carefully with jobs and family-friendly employers, but is it not the case that they are having enough trouble just keeping up with the paperwork? Is there the necessary resource for us to do the good things that the Secretary of State wants to do?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I shall try to respond to each of his questions. I am grateful for his points on the carer’s allowance and the support provided for people working for small numbers of hours. As we know, a lot of people cannot work for more than 16 hours, particularly those in families with caring responsibilities, and it is better for them to be able to work than not to be working, even if they can only work a small number of hours.
In terms of what happens after six months in respect of the back-to-work credit, the evidence suggests that people do not drop out of work after the credit finishes—in any case, the vast majority of people are significantly better off in work. The addition of the credit not only guarantees that they will be £40 a week better off, but it gives them the clear and simple message that they will be better off by that amount when they might be concerned about housing benefit or the interaction between different benefits, which can be difficult to understand. This credit gives people the simple message that they will be £40 a week better off, and it allows them to get back into work so that they can build their confidence and understand that, in the future, they will still be better off in work than unemployed.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about mortgages is important. Some people will find themselves with unsustainable mortgages, perhaps taken out before the credit crunch began. For those people, we want to ensure that there is long-term help, if possible to get them back into a job that pays them enough to maintain their mortgage payments, but if not, to provide support to them via some of the mortgage rescue schemes or via housing associations and other bodies, so that we ensure that they have sustainable long-term housing finance as well. That matter obviously raises a wider range of issues to consider.
Under the Welfare Reform Bill it is possible to remove income support, but that is not our intention at this time, because we need it for precisely the reasons the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We think there is a case for providing a single working age benefit and for undertaking much wider benefit reform in the future, but such reform must be undertaken in stages, which is why we are making individual changes through measures such as the reform of housing benefit.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the work capability assessment. We are reviewing it and we have been working on that with expert stakeholders and medical professionals. We are also closely monitoring the appeals process. We believe that some sensible changes and modifications can be made to the work capability assessment, and discussions on this issue are ongoing.
In the White Paper, we refer to the additional assistance that we want to provide to those people on jobseeker’s allowance who may be able to work but who may also have health conditions and therefore need some additional support in that context even though they are able to take up employment and work as well. We will want to consider that possibility as part of a review of the pathways programme.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the high sums of housing benefit and about high rents in some areas. We think it is right to look at the possibility of excluding the highest proportion of rents from the calculations. The rent officers used to do that under the old local reference rent scheme: they used to exclude some of both the highest and the lowest rents when working out their calculations. There is a second issue to consider: because of the wide areas within which the local housing allowance applies, the average in an area can be raised by the presence of some very high cost and expensive properties in certain neighbourhoods, and that ends up having an impact on nearby neighbourhoods. We think it is possible to exclude some of the highest rents that are distorting the system and leading to unfairness without jeopardising the existence of mixed communities, because it is right that we continue to support decent housing in mixed communities across London and many of our areas.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what more we can do from the very first day of unemployment. Jobcentre Plus trials will be starting in his area and several others to give jobcentre advisers precisely the flexibility he was talking about, so that they are able to consider people very much as individuals in respect of what help they need and whether they should be fast-tracked to particular forms of support or additional help. Those trials will consider how we can enable jobcentres to work more flexibly. Jobcentres have done a fantastic job in the difficult period of the last 12 months by not only responding to the very big increase in the number of people coming through their doors, but helping people and getting people back into work and paying benefits on time. We should pay tribute to the immense amount of hard work done by many of the people in our jobcentres, and we want to give them more support so that they can do a better and more flexible job in future as well.
When my right hon. Friend is judging people by what they do and not what they say, will she recall what happened to apprenticeships in the 1980s, who abolished the old wages councils and who pursued poverty pay? May I particularly welcome the announcements that she has made today on housing benefit run-on and the carer’s allowance, both of which have been strong recommendations of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in the past and, thus, are even more relevant and important? I welcome her announcement on the extension to the youth guarantee, but can she tell the House how many jobs have so far been filled through local employment partnerships?
I believe that the local employment partnerships are filling more than 30,000 jobs a month. I cannot recall, off the top of my head, the cumulative figure for the LEPs, but they have certainly helped far more people into work than we expected them to do, which is why we have provided them with some additional support and funding so that they can expand their work. They are working closely with employers, and providing people with additional targeted training has been very successful. My hon. Friend is also right to say that apprenticeships had been pretty much killed off before 1997, since when there has been a big increase in their number, with more than 230,000 people starting apprenticeships in the past year. Apprenticeships are a good opportunity for young people to receive training as well as work experience.
As someone who welcomes anything that can tackle the big problem of unemployment, may I ask the Secretary of State to give me her estimate of how many additional unsubsidised sustainable jobs there will be in 18 months’ time if the Government spend this £400 million?
The right hon. Gentleman is asking for the number of unsubsidised jobs there will be, and one of the things that we are doing through the future jobs fund is to subsidise employment for young people, because we think that that is the right thing to do. So of that £400 million, £300 million is helping not only to expand things such as the future jobs fund—that deals with the subsidised jobs—but to deliver additional targeted training to get young people back into work. The overall level of employment in the economy and the number of jobs that exist will depend not simply on our work to help people into work, but on the wider work to support the economy. It has been estimated that the measures that we have taken to support the economy, for example, the wider fiscal stimulus, and the support provided through the Bank of England and quantitative easing, have helped to prevent the loss of up to 500,000 jobs as a result of the recession. We need to keep supporting the economy, rather than to cut back on support for the economy and for jobs, as his party is proposing right now, in the middle of the recession.
I, too, welcome the three month run-on for housing benefit, because it is important in letting people settle down into jobs before there is any threat of their having their benefit taken from them. Did not my right hon. Friend say something in the White Paper about discussion as to whether housing benefit can be paid directly to landlords? I have been in correspondence with one of her colleagues about a local citizens advice bureau and the eviction of some of its clients because they have chaotic lifestyles. They are drug addicts and they have been pleading for their housing benefit to be paid straight to their landlord. I would welcome such an approach.
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know that she and others on the Select Committee have been examining this issue. Clearly it ought to be possible already for those with the most chaotic lifestyles to have their housing benefit paid directly to their landlord. We will be issuing new guidance very shortly to make that clearer for local authorities, although they should be doing more of this already. As part of the document, we are also consulting on giving tenants a wider choice and to be able to have their rent paid directly to their landlords if they so choose. It is important that the choice should lie with the tenant, not simply with the landlord because that has been an important way of empowering tenants and giving them more choice, as opposed to simply paying the money directly to landlords. The other thing on which we want to consult as part of this proposal is whether there should be any conditions on the landlord where rents are paid directly to them. Such conditions could relate, for example, to the quality or the energy efficiency of the property, and we would like to seek people’s views on whether that is the right thing to do.
One of the aspects of this recession is that employers have learned to retain older, skilled workers so that they are still in work when there is an upturn in the market. Concomitant to that has been the fact that they have not been so willing and/or able to take on new, younger staff—school leavers and others. Will the Secretary of State explain what the future job fund offers to employers in the private sector? How can they access the fund to enable them to employ younger people so that its application does not simply lead to a further burgeoning of the public sector? I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand that many local authorities up and down the country are going through the difficult task of having to consider their staff levels against the current economic background, and it is very difficult for them to explain to their staff that they are simultaneously taking on people through the future jobs fund while trying to slim down the existing labour force in local government.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the impact on young people. He asked how private sector employers can benefit, and they can do so in a series of ways because it is not just about the support provided through the future jobs fund, but the additional support that is available for apprenticeships, via Train to Gain, recruitment subsidies and internships, if employers can offer them. For a lot of private sector employers, this is the opportunity to take on the talent of the future—to get talented people and to train them up. That is good for business as well as good for those young people.
We are also asking all employers, through the backing young Britain campaign, to see what they can do. Some might work with other partners through the future jobs fund, but others might simply offer a graduate internship for six months, for example. We can provide additional support and help when internships can be offered. Employers could even simply act as mentors to young people, and could perhaps give them just a couple of weeks of work experience, too. The backing young Britain website provides a range of ways in which employers can also get more information and support through Jobcentre Plus and other agencies to help them to help young people.
I agree that tenants should have the choice on housing benefit, but what worries me is the young people who leave school very early—the under-achievers—and drift into drugs, alcoholism and crime. They are left for perhaps six months to wander the streets. They worry me—I see them in my constituency, as all other Members will in theirs—because they are the ones who get into trouble and end up in a hostel and sometimes in prison. What can we do for them?
My hon. Friend is right that it is that small minority of people who can be most vulnerable and who also need the greatest support. It is often vital that agencies and organisations work together to help them, otherwise they slip through the net. Today, we are publishing a revised strategy to help young people, particularly 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, in exactly those circumstances. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to that. We are also keen for jobcentres to work more closely with other agencies that provide both family support and support for those young people, so that the jobcentre does not simply start to work when somebody reaches 18; jobcentres can do their bit to help provide employment support or skills advice, where appropriate, for 16-year-olds.
The £40 in-work guarantee sounds very positive, but does that not still leave an issue with the marginal tax rate being about 85 per cent. when they move beyond the £40? Should we be considering the minimum wage as part of the answer?
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the minimum wage is established by the Low Pay Commission, which considers every year how the national minimum wage can be increased. The national minimum wage has been an important part of ensuring that people are better off in work. As a result of the changes to things such as the tax credits, we have, over the past 10 to 12 years, reduced the number of people facing the very highest marginal deduction rates, which occurs when there are complex interactions between different benefits. That is also one reason why we think that the long-term approach will include measures such as simplifying housing benefit and considering how to apply it better in future, for example through a housing tax credit or different approaches to a single working age benefit. A further impact of that is ensuring not only that people are better off, but that they get continued support. If all support was immediately withdrawn once people moved into work, although they would be able to work more hours and see their income increase with every hour that they worked, they might lose the substantial additional support that we think it is right to give to people on low incomes. Such people, especially those with families, should have additional support, and there should also be extra support for their children.
The issue is important, but we have done a lot to reduce the number of people facing the highest marginal deduction rates. The long-term approach to the issue should be through such measures as major benefit and tax reform.
Given that we reformed housing benefit for private tenants with the introduction of housing allowances to enable those tenants to make the kind of housing choices that the rest of us take for granted, although we should recognise that there will always be a small minority who do not pay their rent on time and therefore have a facility to deal with that, can we be careful that we do not re-reform housing benefit purely in the landlord’s interest, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) requests, and that we use housing allowance as a way out of benefit dependency and towards greater freedom and empowerment?
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The issue is extremely important, which is why we are consulting on how we should proceed. There are some cases in which it would be easier for tenants to have their rent paid directly to their landlords, but equally, in the vast majority of cases, we think that it is much better for rent to be paid to tenants so that they have the financial power to take decisions themselves. It is important that decisions and reforms are taken forward in the interests of tenants, rather than simply as a response to things for which landlords have asked. Tenants are at the centre of these reforms.
The overall level of unemployment has not risen as much as the Government expected, which is a good thing, but the level of youth unemployment has risen by more than they expected, which is a bad thing. The Secretary of State confirmed today that she anticipates that that rate will carry on rising beyond the date of the general election. What led the Government to underestimate the recession’s impact on young people?
I do not think that that is accurate. The Budget forecasts earlier this year reflected independent forecasts at the time, and the average of those independent forecasts suggested that the overall rate of unemployment would be about 400,000 higher than it is today. As a result, and to anticipate that, we ensured that there was additional funding in place to help as many people as possible back to work. We said from the very beginning, however, that additional help needed to be provided for young people, especially. Historically, young people have always been those who are more affected by recessions, especially because they are the people who are trying to find a new job at a time when employers have cut back on recruitment. That was why we introduced the future jobs fund, and we talked about £1 billion of additional support for young people at the time of the Budget exactly because we wanted to ensure that extra help would be available for them.
The figures, including the Independent Labour Organisation measure, show that about 12 per cent. of the youth population who were not full-time students were unemployed in the 1990s, while the figure was 13 per cent. in the 1980s. The current proportion of the youth population who are unemployed and not in full-time education is 9 per cent. I think that the expansion of higher education and places for 16 to 17-year-olds has been important but, of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that there is much more that we need to do.
My right hon. Friend will know that Lord McKenzie of Luton came to my constituency to look at the fantastic partnership work going on between the retail sector, the further education sector and her Department that has helped keep down the pressures on youth unemployment. May I ask her to tweak things just a little more by making her Department a little more customer focused? An example of the present lack of flexibility is that people required to undertake their six-month interview are asked to go, not to their nearest jobcentre, but to one structured for the convenience of the jobcentre. Tiny changes like that would make a massive difference to customers.
I am happy to look into the points that my hon. Friend makes about having that flexibility for the customer, and he is also right to point to the partnerships between Jobcentre Plus and other agencies and employers. Major employers have got involved, especially in the retail, leisure and other sectors, and they are working to provide pre-employment training that the jobcentre will fund. That helps people secure a first interview who might not get the chance otherwise, and it also helps them to get the training that gets them into work. That partnership work is making a difference, and helping a lot of people avoid the kind of long-term unemployment that they might have experienced in previous recessions.
Tens of thousands of people have been made redundant in the past three years, many of them having been employed by large multinationals. Will the training opportunities outlined by the right hon. Lady today target getting self-employed people into the small and medium-sized enterprise sector? If so, young people might at least have a greater opportunity to get sustainable employment than has been the case in the past.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to support job growth, for which SMEs may be crucial over the next four or five years. We are also setting out proposals today to make it easier for people who want to start their own businesses. They will be able to get additional advice and support on starting up a business from the very first day that they become unemployed, and a self-employment credit of £50 a week will be available for them once they reach three months of unemployment. In that way, people who have ideas, initiative and an understanding of what they want to do will get the support that they need to get started. That will be good for them and their businesses, and for the economy as well.
When my right hon. Friend is reflecting on actions, I trust that she will remember the massive increase in child poverty and the tripling in the number of people on incapacity benefit that were the hallmarks of the last time that the Conservatives had the opportunity to put their words into action. I welcome her contract for young people, but does it extend to Scotland? If so, has she or any of her colleagues had prior discussions with the Scottish Government and other devolved agencies? They will be crucial in the delivery of the contract for young people in Scotland.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and she is right too about the number of lone parents, for example, who have got back into work. Levels of employment in that group have increased over the last year, despite the recession, and that is helping children right across the country to get out of poverty. She also asked about Scotland, and I can tell her that the single skills budget is for England. However, the vast majority of the proposals that we have set out today apply in Scotland as well, and the Scotland Office is taking forward discussions on skills with the Scottish Executive, where there are relevant issues with which they need to be involved.
The future jobs fund has already delivered 144 jobs in my area, so I thank my right hon. Friend for her announcement today of additional support for 16 and 17-year-olds. The current economic climate demands that we support that vulnerable group of citizens, but does she agree that the Opposition’s attempts to rewrite history simply add nothing to this important debate, as we have seen in the recent past with other elements of welfare reform?
My hon. Friend is right. This is not just about rewriting history, as we well remember what happened with youth unemployment in particular during the 1980s and 1990s. The problems did not arise only during the recession, as they were also evident during the recovery, when youth unemployment soared. However, the future is more important now, and he mentioned 144 job opportunities that the future jobs fund has delivered in his area. That is 144 people who would have their job taken away if the Conservatives were elected to government.
I very much welcome the announcement today of additional support for young people, carers and parents. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the lack of affordable child care is a real obstacle to many parents entering work. Will she therefore tell me a little more about her proposal to fund travel and child care costs for jobseekers in part-time training? It will be important not only for them, but for ensuring that there is ongoing child care so that, when they get jobs, those jobs are sustainable.
I agree about the importance of child care. We have already done a lot to increase the free child care that is available for three and four-year-olds as part of nursery education, and to develop the child care tax credit and other child care support. As part of the White Paper, we are looking to provide additional child care, travel costs and help for jobseekers in part-time training. Otherwise, they will end up missing out on the chance to train, simply because they cannot get the child care that works for them. We are looking at whether we should develop child care loans for people when they start employment and, for example, have to pay a month’s child care costs up front. We are looking at whether we can give additional support in those circumstances. We are also working with the Department for Children, Schools and Families on issues like that, as part of its families Green Paper.
Point of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 14, the Government are required to name 13 days on which private Members’ business has precedence over Government business. Tomorrow the private Members’ Bills will be presented, but hon. Members still have no idea on what dates their Second Readings will be. I understand that there is no precedent for that, so could you give some advice to hon. Members about how to get out of that seeming chaos?
I say to the hon. Gentleman that tomorrow is, indeed, the day for the presentation of the balloted private Members’ Bills for this Session. The House has not yet ordered the Fridays when such Bills will be debated; a motion is on the Order Paper setting out certain Fridays. It is up to those in charge of Bills to decide when to set them down for Second Reading, taking into account the various possibilities that appear on the Order Paper. I cannot pretend that that is a satisfactory situation for Back Benchers, but I hope that it will be resolved soon after the recess.
Bill presented
Video recordings bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr. Siôn Simon, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Pat McFadden and Mr. Stephen Timms, presented a Bill to repeal and revive provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 14) with explanatory notes (Bill 14-EN).
Flood and Water Management Bill
[Relevant Documents: The Sixth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2008-09, on the Draft Flood and Water Management Bill, HC 555-I, and the Government response, Cm 7741.]
Second Reading
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), sends his apologies to the House, because he is at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels, where important fisheries negotiations are taking place today. We all wish him well. May I also draw the House’s attention to the publication today of the latest progress report on the implementation of Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations?
I thank the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill that we published in April. The Bill that is now before us has benefited from their thorough and close examination, as well as from more than 650 responses to the public consultation. It is shorter than the original Bill, for reasons that the House will understand, but we remain committed to taking the other measures forward when time allows.
As all too many Members in the Chamber will be aware, the origins of the Bill lie in the devastating floods of 2007. It is never possible to attribute one particular event to our changing climate, but what happened then was a stark reminder of our vulnerability to the force of nature. Important parts of the Bill owe a great deal to Sir Michael Pitt’s “lessons learned” report. I am sure that the whole House would wish once again to express its thanks to Sir Michael for the work that he has done. We have responded to many of his recommendations.
I have read the Bill once—I hope that that is sufficient—I cannot see any provision to give the fire and rescue service a statutory duty to deal with flooding, which was one of the Pitt review’s recommendations. What do the Government intend to do about that, and when?
The Government’s view is that it is not necessary for such a duty to be put in legislation because the fire and rescue service already provides a very good service in rescuing people. It has built up capacity. As the House will be aware, we have provided funding and other support to enable it to undertake those duties even better in future. It was not the view of the Government’s then adviser, Ken Knight, that such a change was necessary.
The Secretary of State knows that I support the Bill, and I thank him for introducing it. He will have heard the Deputy Speaker talking about the presentation of private Members’ Bills tomorrow, and may have seen on today’s Order Paper that I will present a Bill to require local councils to take account of Environment Agency objections to building on the flood plain—a highly relevant matter. Will he consider whether that very simple but very necessary measure could be added to this Bill?
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to that precise point in a little while. He raises an important issue about the way in which we take decisions about planning applications.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) referred to the fire and rescue service. Will the Secretary of State put on record his thanks for the work that it did in the summer of 2007 and, more particularly, the outstanding work that it has done in recent weeks in Cumbria, backed by a very influential local Member of Parliament?
With the greatest of pleasure. I know that I speak for all Members in the House in saying that we are full of admiration and respect for the outstanding work of the fire and rescue service, but also, to be honest, that of everybody who helps out in times of need and emergency. A lot of people owe a great deal to their skill and determination.
Since the summer of 2007, we have completed 106 flood defence schemes protecting more than 63,800 additional homes in England, we have invested £60 million to help to tackle surface water flooding, and some 140,000 more people have signed up to receive flood warnings in England and Wales. In addition, we have set up the new flood forecasting centre—one of Sir Michael’s recommendations—which provides a single forecast, including an extreme rainfall alert. During the floods in Cumbria, it played an important role in giving emergency responders early warning of heavy rainfall as well as expert advice on the risk of flooding. Thirty-six hours before the flooding occurred, the flood forecasting centre indicated a high risk of significant property flooding and a danger to life in Cumbria. That shows the benefit of this change.
What we saw in Cumbria reminds us of the devastating effect that flooding has on homes, on businesses, on communities and, above all, on people’s lives. Our sympathies go out to all those affected, as do our thanks to all those who responded with such selflessness and determination. Equally impressive has been the tremendous resolve of the communities affected to get back on their feet.
The 2007 floods affected great swathes of the country, as many hon. Members here today know only too well—from Sheffield, Doncaster and Hull to many communities in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, the Thames valley and elsewhere. Thirteen lives were lost, 55,000 homes and businesses were affected, and £3 billion-worth of damage was done. For individuals, businesses and home owners, recovery is not quick. We know from previous flooding that getting back on one’s feet can take many long, hard months.
The rainfall in Cumbria was truly exceptional, and that in 2007 very unusual, but this may not be the case in future, as climate change will make what are currently extreme events more frequent. Sea levels are also expected to rise. According to the most recent projections by the UK climate impacts programme, that rise could be 36 cm in London before the end of the century.
The Secretary of State will know that the source of the River Severn is in my constituency. He mentioned the floods of 2007, many of which were directly related to that river. Does he agree that if the Bill is to be effective, we will have to find ways to mitigate the speed at which water enters the watercourse and comes down the river? To achieve that, we have to find upstream and uphill solutions to increase the absorbency of the mountains. Simply building higher walls will not be the solution.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and one important purpose of the Bill is flood risk management. Of course defences are important, which is why we have been investing more money in building them, but we also need to think about other ways to handle the flow of water.
Further to the point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made, flood alleviation programmes work well upstream in places such as Milton Keynes and Bedford, but create major problems in constituencies such as mine. In effect, a different value is placed on the life of people who live in my constituency from that of people who live upstream. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Bill must ensure that the whole length of the river system is taken into full account, so that everybody has an equal chance of alleviating the flood problems that we suffer from?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we have catchment flood management plans for precisely that reason. He makes the point that what we do in one place can have a beneficial or negative consequence somewhere else. That is why we have to consider where the water comes from, how it moves and where it ends up, so that we can take the right decisions. Choices have to be made, as I think the House recognises.
When we are talking about choices, we have to talk about funds as well. Understandably, the majority of funding is directed towards dealing with river and coastal flooding, yet many of our constituents face problems of ground and surface water flooding. How can we get the balance right so that we put in place not only the plans but the funding to make a difference to people’s lives?
I agree with my hon. Friend. Particularly in Sheffield and Hull but also in many other places, surface water flooding was the problem. That is why one of the purposes of the Bill is to make it absolutely clear for the first time who has lead responsibility for taking account of the matter, which will be unitary or upper-tier authorities. They will bring together all the people responsible for the different drainage systems, private culverts and highways and byways that take water away.
We must ensure that we do not add to the problem. I shall turn presently to sustainable urban drainage, and we have made a practical change to planning permission that does not cost any money. Previously, someone could pave, tarmac and concrete over their front garden without needing to ask anybody. Now they have to apply for planning permission if they use non-permeable paving, but not if they put in place permeable paving. Front gardens tend by definition to drain off into roads. That is a very simple change that we have already put in place at no cost, and it shows that although the solution is about investment, it is also about how we approach the problem. Nobody took responsibility in the past, and if we put the Bill on the statute book we will ensure that somebody has responsibility in future.
Does the Secretary of State believe that local authorities have the resources to enforce that step adequately?
From the assessment that we have made, to which I shall turn in a moment, we are certainly confident that the transfer of responsibility for private sewers to the water companies, which we intend to put in place, will free up resources. I will be perfectly frank and say that we need to have a discussion with local authorities about funding in the medium to long term, and I undertake that we will do that to ensure that the costs are fully funded.
Two weeks ago we awarded £11 million to 15 local authorities for pathfinder schemes to help them deal with coastal change. They are in the best position to understand what is needed, and the projects will support a range of activities from the creation of new sand dunes and the building of boardwalks to buy-to-let schemes for properties at risk and land purchase for rebuilding.
The Secretary of State is right that what happens in one area can affect another, but under the Bill there will be separate flood management strategies for England and Wales. Clause 8(3) states:
“The Welsh Ministers must consult the Secretary of State”
on such strategies
“so far as the strategy may affect…England.”
Will the Secretary of State say more about how he would adjudicate what is right or wrong? Tewkesbury is very much affected by what happens in Wales.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. The holder of my office will have responsibility for trying to weigh up proposals. In the end, what we are seeking to do with this legislation—one of the other purposes of these changes—is to get all parties that have an interest in and responsibilities for such things, including duties placed upon them by the Bill, to work together. As we have already heard in interventions from Members on both sides of the Chamber, what one body does has an impact elsewhere and what happens in one place has an impact elsewhere. The Bill is constructed to ensure that people come together and work co-operatively.
The Environment Agency has justified its position on where it puts flood alleviation schemes in economic terms, confirming that it is complying with the Treasury’s Green Book. It states:
“Current Government policy for investment in flood defences favours densely populated areas over rural and agricultural areas and at the moment it does not take account of, for example, future food security”.
Is that fair?
It is certainly true that a formula is used to make a judgment about where the priorities are. That is a combination of where people live and the economic impact. The House and the nation could have a different set of priorities, but even with the additional investment that we are putting in, choices have to be made on where we are going to spend money. As we know, in the east of the country, coastal erosion is a natural process that has been going on for thousands of years.
On that point, does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that it would not be a sensible strategy explicitly to aim to flood large swathes of, for instance, Montgomeryshire, to protect downstream towns—in other words, to cause problems upstream that are just as expensive and damaging as those downstream? If he can assure me that the Government will not embark on such an insane strategy, I promise not to interrupt him again.
That is a very generous offer. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point that the House acknowledges, namely, that there are choices. I have seen for myself a really good washland scheme protecting Lincoln. When there are high levels of rainfall, the water is diverted into a farmer’s fields, with his agreement, and it comes out two, three or four days later. It works well. When I asked the farmer, he told me that the type of crops he grows can cope. It all depends on the circumstances, but there is not always an easy answer to such choices.
I am going to make a little bit of progress.
It is precisely because one in six homes in England is already at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea, or indeed surface water, that we cannot move every community away from flood risk. That is why we set out a rigorous test in planning policy statement 25. The expert advice of the Environment Agency on flood risk and new buildings is now followed in 98 per cent. of cases, according to the latest figures that I have. I think that shows that altering the guidance and requiring the agency to be consulted has had an impact.
We can also do more to make individual properties resilient and resistant if the water gets in. A recent example of that was when homes and businesses in Appleby got through the flooding because of the Government grant funding that enabled 46 of them to buy and fit protection equipment. We expect to see more work of that type in future. The Bill defines risk, sensibly, as the combination of likelihood and consequence. The Bill will therefore encourage both resistance and resilience as ways of managing the consequences of flooding. That is important, because where properties are at risk we can also work with the insurance industry so that insurance cover remains widely available. Our agreement on a statement of principles with the Association of British Insurers is intended to do this. The ABI wants to see our record investment in flood defence—£2.15 billion in the current three-year period—and it also expects the Bill to help to overhaul how we better manage the rising risk from flooding. It has urged all of us to work together to ensure that the Bill becomes an Act as quickly as possible.
One of the principal purposes of the Bill is to ensure that organisations know what bit of flood risk they are responsible for managing and that local people know that, too, so part 1 of the Bill will enable a wider range of approaches to flood and coastal erosion risk management and clarify responsibilities for all sources of flooding. The Environment Agency will take a strategic role, including developing a national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk in England, and a similar role in Wales will be taken by Welsh Ministers. County and unitary authorities will take the lead in ensuring the management of local flood risk and developing plans to deal with it. Resilience and other approaches that minimise the impact of flooding and coastal erosion will be an important part of the plan, and the Bill makes it clear that all authorities can use these as well as, of course, providing flood defences and flood warnings.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that his Department will cover all the additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the additional responsibilities that many county councils will take on?
As I have already indicated, I will say something in a moment on that very point. I know that it is a source of concern that local authorities have raised.
The lead local authorities will also take on responsibility for surface water flooding, which is a responsibility assigned for the first time in law—for sound reasons that I am sure the House will accept. That is really important, as the Environment Agency estimates that in 2007 two thirds of the 55,000 properties affected were damaged as a result of surface water run-off overloading the drainage system, as opposed to rivers overflowing.
The Bill will encourage all local authorities, the Environment Agency, water companies, internal drainage boards and others to work together in tackling flood risk. Part 1 will introduce duties on those bodies to co-operate and share information and will provide for improved accountability through local authority scrutiny committees.
Will the Bill, in its somewhat reduced form, still enable water companies to take the lead on enforcement against illegal connections? Problems in my area are often caused by an illegal connection of clean water to the foul water sewerage system, or vice versa.
No, it will not, because we have had to shorten the Bill so that we can get the most important things through.
Part 1 of the Bill also recognises the important role of district councils and internal drainage boards. They will retain their works powers in relation to ordinary watercourses. Part 1 will also place duties on the flood risk management authorities to contribute to sustainable development when managing flood and coastal erosion risk, and regional flood defence committees will have their remit extended to coastal erosion. Schedule 1 to the Bill will give new powers to local authorities, the Environment Agency and internal drainage boards in England and Wales to protect physical features that they do not own, but which can play an important role in flood protection or in avoiding coastal erosion.
On the issue of internal drainage boards, I welcome the increased flexibility that the Bill will introduce. Those boards are advantageous because of their localness and their knowledge. If there is any way at all in which we can boost their influence and their ability to deliver, this is the right time to do it. Will my right hon. Friend take that on board?
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s comments about the work of the internal drainage boards. Over the summer, we consulted on other changes, as he will be aware, but they are not in the Bill, for the reason that I gave earlier.
Schedule 3 to the Bill will help to manage the risk of surface water flooding by encouraging the construction of sustainable drainage systems—or SUDS, as they are known—for new developments and redevelopments. County and unitary authority approval will be required for the drainage proposed for any new development, and the approving body will then be responsible for maintaining the SUDS on new developments serving more than one property.
All net new burdens on local authorities will be fully funded. As I indicated a moment ago, on funding SUDS maintenance in the long term, we will publish a clear way forward that takes account of the circumstances faced by local authorities and developers, and that will happen in time for the implementation of this Bill. The aim is to reassure local authorities that they can implement SUDS in the knowledge that there will be no gap in funding.
My right hon. Friend is being generous; I apologise for interrupting his flow. Recommendation 39 in the Pitt review stated:
“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.”
Why has that statutory duty not been included in the Bill?
I explained earlier to another hon. Member why that was the case: we do not think it necessary simply because, first, fire and rescue services already provide that function—we saw that during the 2007 and 2009 floods—secondly, because the Government’s then adviser, Ken Knight, did not think it necessary, and thirdly, because we have given additional support, finance and training assistance to the fire and rescue service so that it can continue doing the very good job that it does, which is to help people when they are in difficulty.
Local authorities will need to build their skills to carry out these new roles, so we are working closely with local government, professional bodies and training providers, investing more than £1 million to support that effort.
The House will recall the awful moment, during the 2007 flooding, when there were fears that the Ulley reservoir might fail. Schedule 4 will introduce a risk-based approach to reservoir safety to improve the way we handle such matters. I am conscious of the concerns that reservoir owners and users have expressed, but the aim is to provide proportionate regulation that reflects the danger that reservoir failure might pose to human life—that must be the overriding consideration—regardless of the use to which the reservoir is put. In many cases, however, we expect to reduce the regulatory burden.
Part 2 of the Bill will give powers to the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards to undertake environmental works related to flood risk that are in the best interests of nature conservation, the preservation of cultural heritage or people’s enjoyment of the environment.
A more variable climate has implications not just for flooding. Members will recall the very recent years of drought in the south-east. It is important that we consider how we can manage a shortage of water as well as too much of it. The remainder of part 2 therefore deals with the most important and urgent matters relating to water management. It will enable the Government to review and update water companies’ powers to prohibit or restrict certain non-essential domestic uses of water in times of drought. It will also provide for new regulated entities to finance and deliver the very large, or unusual, water infrastructure projects that we might need in the future to address the challenges of climate change and population growth. That will ensure that water customers are protected from new risks associated with the delivery of such projects.
Schedule 5 will amend the special administration regime for the water industry to align it with the general insolvency regime applicable to other companies. The Bill will also fulfil the Government’s commitment to legislate to protect community and religious groups and sports clubs from unaffordable rises in their water bills because of unreasonable surface water charges. It will allow water companies to introduce concessionary schemes.
My right hon. Friend will know of my interest in horticultural businesses, as secretary of the gardening and horticulture all-party group, and I declare an interest accordingly. On draught and the problems associated with the last one, would it not be sensible to introduce a code of conduct to protect the industry and gardeners from what was seen last time as a blanket ban? It could, and should, have been a phased ban.
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point, and I know of his close interest in the horticultural industry. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to give us clearer powers to do the right thing in the right circumstances. However, I can give him an undertaking that we will wish to consult those affected, as necessary, according to the circumstances.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his Department’s excellent work in dealing with usurious charges of water companies against community groups and for the help he has given to churches and scout groups in my constituency. Will he give me an assurance that he will not hesitate to use his powers, under clause 42(5), with regard to water companies that level usurious charges against groups such as the Birch community group in my constituency? That would enable such groups to benefit from the excellent work done by him and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies).
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words, which I echo, about the DEFRA civil servants, and I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has worked very hard on this matter. Given the united view in the House and country, I find it hard to imagine that water companies will not do as desired. It is not a problem in some cases because there are some sensible schemes in place, but where there have been problems, the Bill will make it clear that there is a solution.
Part 2 of the Bill will abolish the Fisheries Committee in Scotland, ending the duplication of functions and removing an unnecessary burden on business.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Given that it is the right hon. Gentleman, I shall give way.
I am most grateful. Before the Secretary of State moves on to the Scottish Fisheries Committee, may I take him back to the previous point? The affordability issue in respect of certain social activities within our constituencies has been fixed, but the Bill still lacks a response to Anna Walker’s report. One issue that continues to trouble people in the field of water is affordability. Will the Secretary of State tell me what steps his Department will take—if necessary, outwith the Bill—together with Ofwat to continue to pursue issues connected with water affordability, particularly in relation to the further development of social tariffs?
The right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. As he will know, we have only just had the final report of Anna Walker’s review. There is a great deal for us all to think about, including the Government, and we shall respond in due course. I am acutely conscious of the issue that he raises and the impact that it has on many people, and I shall be happy to talk to him further about how we might pursue the matter, once we have formed a view on what to do.
Part 3 will provide for existing legislation to be amended, by way of secondary legislation, to simplify procedures and standardise provisions within different statutes. That is to pave the way for consolidation and for the single unifying Act for floods legislation that was explicitly recommended by Sir Michael Pitt and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
As Members will be aware, owing to the shortness of this parliamentary Session, it has been necessary to prioritise. However, when taken with the regulations implementing the EU floods directive, the Bill will implement the most important provisions on flooding, including the recommendations of Sir Michael Pitt’s report that require legislation.
I am grateful for the broad support expressed for the principles in the Bill, and it will no doubt be carefully scrutinised in Committee. However, the most important thing we can do is to ensure that it proceeds as quickly as possible, so that the House and society can show that we are doing all we can to help to prevent flooding. That is why the Bill matters, and I commend it to the House.
The whole House has seen on the television images of flooded landscapes, but as many hon. Members and the Secretary of State know, it is perhaps only when we see for ourselves the devastating effect of flooding on people’s homes and businesses that we truly understand its impact. Man takes charge of so much nowadays that it is sobering to see the awesome force of nature that flooding represents.
Nature’s power was evident most recently in the flooding in Cumbria. Although it was inspiring to see the emergency services working so effectively, local communities coming together and people helping each other, that flooding was a timely reminder that it remains the primary duty of the state to ensure the security of the public whenever it can. That will increasingly mean ensuring our environmental security, which is ultimately what the Copenhagen summit is all about. Although we must try our best to secure a deal to mitigate greenhouse emissions, our climate is already changing. The adaptation agenda is just as important, as I said in my response to the Gracious Speech.
The Bill is about enhancing our environmental security and adapting to climate change through better flood risk management. Ultimately, it is about protecting people and their homes. We must never forget the human consequences when we fail in that duty. One victim of the 2007 floods said:
“It was horrendous when the flood arrived. Nobody knew what to do…There was sewage running through the house which caused an awful smell…there was water everywhere, so we had to wade through the street to find somewhere above water.”
That experience has been repeated in Cumbria, as hon. Members are only too aware.
Nor must we forget the duty that we owe to help communities to recover from flooding when it occurs. The national media may move on, but communities such as those in Cockermouth, Keswick, Workington and Kendal have only just begun to rebuild their lives and move back into homes and businesses. We must ensure that political attention does not desert them in the months ahead. That is why I will be visiting the affected areas again later this week to meet displaced families who will be out of their homes for Christmas, and I know that the Secretary of State has done the same thing recently.
I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to continue to express their concern for the area, and that we will want to pay tribute to the ongoing clean-up and recovery efforts of local authorities and voluntary organisations, which are working hard to make Christmas bearable for the flood victims. There was unprecedented rainfall in Cumbria, but it is important to recognise the good work of the authorities, especially the Environment Agency, which were better prepared because they had learned the lessons of the Carlisle floods in 2005.
The hon. Gentleman is making some good points, and he is of course welcome in Cumbria. However, does he believe, as I and my Cumbrian colleagues do, that one of the most fundamental answers to the problem is more public money and not less?
As the Secretary of State said, difficult choices will no doubt have to be made, but I have said that I believe it to be the first duty of the Government to ensure the security of the people, and that means ensuring their environmental security as well. There will be an ongoing need for investment in flood defences at a time when public spending choices will be difficult, and I think that the whole House recognises that.
We are at increased risk of flooding. Already one in six homes is at risk, and with climate change this risk will increase. Events such as that seen in Cumbria will become more frequent, as will floods on a larger scale. The most devastating floods were those of summer 2007, which constituted the largest peacetime emergency since the second world war. As the Secretary of State reminded us, 13 people died and more than 55,000 homes and businesses were flooded, at a cost of more than £3 billion. Despite the outstanding response to the Cumbria floods, we need an improved national response to protect families and their homes from flooding, and to better manage floods when they occur.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the operation in 2007 was the largest in peacetime, but will he speculate on how much worse the situation would have been if the flooding had gone that little bit further and the entire county of Gloucestershire had lost its electricity, which it almost did? That is a measure of how serious the situation was.
I take my hon. Friend’s point. The Secretary of State alluded to the potentially catastrophic effects if a reservoir had been affected, and the same could be said of the impact on critical infrastructure, including the electricity system. Many of us will remember the images of the emergency services desperately trying to protect the sub-station. That is a lesson for us all, and I want to come to the issue of critical infrastructure in a moment.
The Bill takes forward recommendations from the review into the 2007 floods by Sir Michael Pitt. It is now more than a year since the Pitt review reported, with a comprehensive set of more than 90 recommendations. The Conservative party supported those recommendations and we are glad that we have the opportunity to consider legislation to implement many of them. I have consistently urged the Government to introduce legislation, so we welcome the Flood and Water Management Bill.
All Members will be aware that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested that the Government should wait until the opportunity arose to have a comprehensive flood and water Bill. However, my view—and, I think, that of most hon. Members—is that we should not delay implementing essential measures, and the Government were right to bring the Bill forward. The recent floods in Cumbria sealed that view. We will therefore work constructively with the Government to ensure that the Bill is strengthened and reaches the statute book as quickly as possible.
There are some key measures in the Bill that Conservatives have called for and that we will seek to ensure are sufficiently clear and robust. First, the confusing and overlapping roles of central Government, agencies, local authorities and the emergency services, which were evident in the 2007 floods, must be brought to an end. The Chief Fire Officers Association described the “institutional confusion” that beleaguered the recovery effort then. The Pitt review called for people and organisations to be held to account and for simple structures and clear outcomes. We must have clearly defined responsibilities. We therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill to give the Environment Agency strategic oversight and to spell out in law that, in most cases, the lead local flood authority with clear responsibility for flood defence will be a unitary authority or county council. In fact, that is something that the Government first advocated nearly five years ago, in their “Making space for water” document.
We also welcome the measures to improve urban drainage and create requirements for new developments to incorporate sustainable solutions. For too long there have been barriers to establishing such systems, which, as the Conservative party’s quality of life review highlighted, have the potential to reduce flood risk from surface water. By requiring new development to focus on permeable paving, ponds and soakaways, we can help to respond to the pressures of climate change, which will lead to more spells of prolonged rainfall.
We also welcome the emphasis on information sharing, so that local flood authorities can better co-ordinate their responses. We will want to ensure greater transparency on flood information, so that local households and businesses get the information that they deserve. We also support the provisions in the Bill on reservoir safety, although we must ensure that they are framed in a way that does not impose unnecessary burdens on owners of small reservoirs, many of which pose no risk to people at all as they are sited on agricultural land. That is an issue that we will need to attend to in Committee.
We broadly support the provisions on infrastructure in part 2 of the Bill that require large projects to be open to competition, which has the potential to help reduce costs to water customers. We are particularly glad to see clause 42, which deals with the problems of charging for surface water drainage—the so-called rain tax—that have caused so much difficulty for scouts, guides, places of worship and other community groups, which were faced with unacceptably high bills. The oversight role of the regulator still needs to be looked at, but overall the proposal is welcome. Back in July, we called on the Government to give companies the discretion that they needed to protect such groups and ensure that new charges were properly monitored by Ofwat. It took Ministers a long time to act, but I am glad to have encouraged them, because they got there in the end and I congratulate them on that.
There are, however, some aspects of the Bill on which we seek clarity from the Government. Some legitimate concerns have been raised by third parties about whether the Bill, in seeking better to co-ordinate the response to flood risk, is too centralising. The National Farmers Union, for instance, has argued that the Environment Agency’s role is “power heavy” but “duty light”. The Environment Agency gains a strategic oversight role for flood risk management, which is certainly right in principle, but in practice we must ensure that it is framed so as not to sideline local concerns. As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee argued, a national strategy is important, but it must not come at the expense of local knowledge, not least because flooding is, in essence, local. The Committee warned against over-centralising measures, stating:
“We are concerned that the draft Bill establishes a rigid vertical structure, which potentially precludes pragmatic cross-boundary area-based approaches that accommodate local people’s views and knowledge.”
Flooding is a national concern, but it always impacts locally. That is why, for instance, local drainage boards are so important in harnessing local expertise and concern. It is therefore vital that we get clarity on how the national strategy will be drawn up and on how it will be approved. The Bill requires the Environment Agency to consult widely when drawing up the strategy, and requires the strategy to be laid before Parliament. Democratic oversight of the process will be crucial to public confidence, however, and ensuring accountability for such an important framework will be vital. We would therefore like Ministers to explain more about how they envisage the process of approval working. Will the EFRA Committee be able to scrutinise the strategy before it is agreed, for example?
With regard to how the national strategy is applied, the Government need to be clearer about how it will fit in with local strategies devised by lead flood authorities. The Bill puts a responsibility on local authorities to develop their own local flood strategies, but it also requires those strategies to be consistent with the national strategy. In that case, how much discretion will local authorities have to diverge from the national strategy set by the Environment Agency?
We also want further clarification on the measures in clause 38, which give the Environment Agency the responsibility to weigh up the competing interests of conservation and people’s enjoyment of the environment, and the potentially harmful consequences of increased flooding or coastal erosion. That is a difficult balance to strike, but we must ensure that local people are involved throughout the decision-making process and that the process is fully accountable.
We are also keen to consider in more detail schedule 1, which relates to the designation of features that could have a significant effect on flood management. The Bill enables the Environment Agency, a lead local flood authority, a district council or an internal drainage board to designate a structure if they believe that its existence or location affects a flood or coastal erosion risk. Following such a designation, the owner of the feature may not change it without the consent of the responsible authority. It is right that assets that could have a serious impact on flooding should be properly accounted for and managed responsibly, but we need to look closely at the implications of the Bill’s drafting. Network Rail, for example, has raised concerns about the designation of its assets, and we will be keen to ensure that proportionality is maintained so that this process does not become complex or costly, and that an appeals procedure is in place.
Beyond concerns over where the Bill might prove too centralising, we also seek clarity on the costs arising from certain provisions. We will seek more details from the Government of the costs that will fall on local authorities in taking on their new responsibilities, because that is worrying them. With council finances stretched, local authorities will need reassurance that additional duties can be afforded without increasing the burden on council tax payers.
Similarly, we have questions on how the additional cost of maintaining sustainable urban drainage systems will be met. Ministers have said:
“We recognise that longer term funding must be in place from around 2018, and are considering a number of options to address the funding of SUDS maintenance in the long term.”
They have also said:
“The Department will ensure that any increased costs to local authorities are fully funded to avoid upward pressure on council tax.”
Despite assurances that medium-term costs will be covered by plans to transfer private sewers to water companies, it is by no means clear that that is the case. The Local Government Association has said that these assumptions are based on seven-year-old data from only 12 per cent. of local authorities, and so are hardly reliable. The provisions might also lead to water companies being hit twice: once for the cost of the sewer transfer and again for the long-term costs of maintaining sustainable urban drainage systems. These are sensible proposals to help to manage the risk of flooding posed by surface water drainage, but in the current economic climate, the Government need to give more detail on how they will be funded, rather than simply relying on historical and incomplete data, and on potential solutions that might emerge in the future.
We welcome this legislation, but, in some respects, it does not go far enough. It will fall to a future Government to bring forward further legislation to cover those aspects that have not made it into this Bill. It was clear from the draft Bill, when it was published in April, that Ministers originally intended to legislate for elements of the Cave and Walker reviews into competition and affordability. The consultation paper said:
“The UK Government and Welsh Assembly Government will each assess”
the recommendations of the reviews. It went on:
“Where they believe it necessary to legislate to implement any changes as a result of these reviews they each intend to do so as part of this Bill.”
But that has not been possible, not least because the Government started the reviews too late, and have therefore left themselves with no time.
Many of Professor Cave’s recommendations on abstraction trading, competition and legal separation will require legislation. Over a year after his interim report, which made a number of recommendations—accepted in full by Ministers—it is disappointing that this rare opportunity to legislate for them is being missed. The recently published Walker report contains a number of recommendations that link directly with the aims of this Bill, particularly the elements relating to efficiency, which could help to change the way people think about their water use and help to reduce the risk of the severe shortages that would require the temporary bans legislated for in the Bill. Referring to the consultation on the draft Bill, DEFRA implied that greater efficiency measures, including duties on companies, could be forthcoming in the Bill, but it will fall to future legislation to introduce them.
The water industry is desperate for measures to tackle the rising problem of water debt, which the whole House should be concerned about. The problem disproportionately impacts on those low-income families who pay their bills and subsidise non-payers by £12 a year. Simple measures in the Walker report to provide for a named bill payer could have been introduced in this Bill, and would not have unduly slowed its progress or jeopardised the vital flooding measures.
Such confusion firmly underlines the need for a new, joined-up approach to the water industry, which is why we are committed to introducing a White Paper to bring together the Cave and Walker proposals and take the opportunity of the current break in the regulatory cycle to make sensible changes to the way in which water companies are regulated, and put customers at the heart of the industry.
We need to do more between floods, rather than just reacting to them when they happen. Reviewing our natural water flows and cycles, and slowing water down, will help to reduce flood risk. We therefore support calls made by many non-governmental organisations, including WWF, for an approach to flood management that places a much greater focus on the use of natural processes. That can have great benefits, as it can increase the storage capacity of the land and act to slow water down, both of which are important in militating against flooding.
Is that not why the Bill is called the Flood and Water Management Bill, rather than the flood defence Bill? Have the Government not already learned such lessons?
I support the Government’s measures in this respect, but I shall come in a moment to some of our caveats.
In my constituency, the Pulborough brooks serve as a natural flood defence. The River Arun’s flood defences failed earlier this month, but because the brooks have been preserved as a nature reserve managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the water has been allowed to dissipate, keeping it away from residential areas, roads and infrastructure. Systems such as those, reliant on environmental measures, have the added benefit of improving our ecosystems and providing new habitat for wildlife.
Given the connection between natural flood defence, river management and wildlife, I appreciate the concerns of bodies such as WWF and the RSPB when they argue for a greater emphasis on the water framework directive in the Bill. The wildlife trusts have estimated that a greater use of natural systems, alongside hard defences and appropriate development, could save £30 billion by 2080. However, using natural systems to help to alleviate flood risk cannot be code for abandoning coastline communities or for casually allowing productive farmland to be sacrificed, especially without proper consultation. We must protect valuable farmland.
My hon. Friend is making a fundamental point. In my constituency in Lincolnshire, a significant percentage of the agricultural land is either grade 1 or grade 2, yet some of it might be left to go back to the sea. That would have a detrimental impact on productivity yields, and on the levels of food that can be produced in this country for consumption in this country.
I agree with my hon. Friend’s concern. As food security becomes more important to us, we must remember that allowing the degradation of important coastal flood defences will have an impact on coastal communities and result in the loss of highly productive farmland. That is a huge issue to the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association and a matter of concern to local communities. We will want to probe that issue further as the legislation develops.
We must protect valuable farmland and continue to find innovative ways of managing coastal erosion. Consistent with our belief in devolving power, more autonomy should be given to allow coastal communities to defend against the sea when they can. I recently saw the work at Bawdsey in Suffolk, where landowners donated farmland to a specially formed trust, which in turn sold the land for housing, raising £2.2 million to fund the strategically important new sea defence. Thanks to Suffolk Coastal district council, which was supportive, the project was successfully completed earlier this year at relatively low cost, defending a headland that in turn protects many hundreds of acres of farmland. That is a good example of a local scheme in action, and we will need to see more of them.
As I have said, despite the impressive response in Cumbria, this legislation is essential.
I want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s Canute-like stance on this issue and ask him to set limits to this extraordinary attempt to defy the natural processes. We will have to surrender land to the sea on the east coast—there is no alternative strategy in some cases—and we really must be more honest with some of our citizens who may think otherwise for perfectly understandable personal reasons.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talk to the communities concerned and put that point of view to them. Their belief is that not enough is being done to protect communities, their houses or farmland and that more could be done at relatively low cost if communities were empowered to take such decisions themselves. I believe that we should take those decisions seriously. Above all, people feel that they are not properly consulted on decisions taken about the maintenance of coastal flood defences and they want to be involved in those decisions and empowered to protect themselves if possible.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are exceptions for constituencies such as mine, which suffer from coastal erosion, and for parts of the fens, which are below sea level and suffer from flood alleviation programmes upstream? Does he accept that constituencies such as mine do not yet want to be rotten boroughs?
I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to represent a rotten borough. It is true that decisions taken about whether to defend one bit of coastline or to let the defences go have an impact not just on the communities affected but further downstream or down the coastline. That shows the importance of adopting an integrated approach, but I am arguing that we need to be more respectful of local communities in taking such decisions.
In making communities more resilient to flooding, we cannot rely solely on legislation. Indeed, the majority of the Pitt recommendations do not require legislation. Some, such as the proposal for a strategic, long-term approach to investment in flood risk management, need political will. As the Pitt review said:
“Change will only happen with strong and more effective leadership across the board.”
On the issue of critical infrastructure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) raised with me, the Government have been too slow in taking forward Pitt’s recommendations to protect such infrastructure from future flooding, so as to ensure that essential utilities are not at risk during times of floods as they were in 2007. Despite being one of Pitt’s urgent interim recommendations, a national emergency framework produced to provide information for all tiers of government is not now due until summer next year. The natural hazards team was established only in May this year. Today’s progress report on Pitt, which the Secretary of State has just published, lists 171 at-risk sites, but perhaps he will tell us when he winds up when he expects the full audit of critical infrastructure to be completed.
Many of us also have concerns about ongoing construction in areas at risk of flooding. It simply cannot make sense that one in 10 new homes are being built within areas of “high flood risk”. We need some foresight by planners and sense from developers, and we must be certain that sufficient flood prevention and flood mitigation measures are in place if any development is to take place in flood risk areas. None of that requires legislation, but it does require sustained attention and focus from government at all levels. The sobering fact is that a year after the 2007 floods, almost 5,000 households were still in temporary accommodation, living in caravans or on the top floor of their homes.
The work of the National Flood Forum in helping communities and raising awareness has been invaluable, and its recent work highlighting the problems of victims of floods or those in at-risk areas in obtaining insurance helped to draw attention to that other significant problem. We must ensure that, when the spotlight turns off an area affected by flooding, the work continues.
Does the hon. Gentleman understand the dilemma when a community is waiting for a strategic plan to be put in place and measures to be introduced, as there is not much of an incentive for them to build in their own resilience? The dilemma is that sometimes the cost-benefit analysis may not bear out all the physical work, so all we end up doing is putting people at greater risk in the future without that built-in resilience. Is that not a message that we should all put forward?
The hon. Gentleman is talking a great deal of sense. I was simply making the point that, if at all possible, we need to get people back into their homes quickly and not lose focus on those issues. After all the attention given to the floods of 2007 and to the Cumbria floods, I fear that there is a risk that, as the House moves on, we forget that hundreds—and in the case of Cumbria, thousands—of people are still unable to live in their homes. I am simply arguing that we need a concerted attempt to get them back into their homes as soon as possible, which is a matter not for legislation but for effective action.
The need for legislation reveals something of a paradox. Climate change is affecting our weather patterns and we can expect a future where our winters will be wetter, with increased river flows and higher sea levels. That will lead to more extreme weather and more flood events. At the same time, we will see more water shortages as demand on this precious resource grows. Not only is it essential to ensure our communities are more resilient to flooding so that we can cope better when we have too much water, but we must all start to conserve and value water more so that we can adapt to the reality of having less of it. That calls for better management of water at every level.
As we look to improve the Bill in the weeks ahead, we must ensure that we are making it easier for people to manage water. Frequently, that will mean allowing local communities to use their local knowledge and expertise to minimise flood risk. By its nature, water is difficult to manage and defending against flooding can be expensive. With huge pressure on resources in the years ahead, difficult decisions will need to be taken. Sometimes it will mean ensuring that adequate hard defences are in place to provide security for the long term.
At the invitation of the Environment Agency, I recently visited the Thames barrier to see the excellent work that goes on in protecting this capital from flooding. When the designers originally agreed the project in the 1960s, future rising river levels were anticipated, so it was deliberately over-engineered. As river levels have risen, barrier closures have increased through the decades. The barrier was closed four times in the 1980s and 75 times in the current decade. That is a testament to British engineering skill and planning foresight, and on latest estimates the barrier should keep London safe until at least 2070.
The barrier is also a symbol, however, of the growing threat from flooding and of defence and the foresight we need to help protect our communities. We have a duty to ensure this country’s environmental security and this Bill is a sensible step in that direction.
rose—
Order. I remind hon. Members that the 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now.
I would like to add my welcome to this Bill, which is an important measure that follows on from a series of reports published after severe flood events going right back to the late ’90s. I remember being involved in the 2000 floods and in the Carlisle floods, where my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) played a distinguished role, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) during the recent floods in his area.
While it is certainly true that one extreme does not prove a climate change, what we have seen is an increase in the number of extreme events in this country and an increase in periods of severe rainfall. It is certainly the case that the percentage of properties flooded by surface water run-off seems to have increased. In that context, I think that the Select Committee’s report, along with the Pitt report and the Bill, makes very sensible proposals.
In general, floods have been dealt with very efficiently. That is not to say that there is no room for improvement, and it is not to say that there has not been some confusion, particularly over who is responsible for non-main water courses and for surface flooding. I know that the Select Committee has considered that issue before, and it is addressed in the Bill. There has been a much more enlightened move towards a range of options in regard to flood and water defence.
We have already discussed “soft defence”. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) was saying that a future Conservative Government might divert money from people’s homes and properties to defend farmland. There will of course be choices to be made about the allocation of budgets, but that does not mean that farmland cannot be used to defend people.
My constituency contains Alkborough Flats, Europe’s largest managed retreat. The land was bought by the Environment Agency, but it is still farmed by the local farmer and his work force. It is designed to flood once in 20 years in the event of a surge down the Humber, the Trent and the Ouse. The crops would be lost in that particular year, but in the meantime it can operate productively. In the Ancholme valley in my constituency, where there is a serious flooding problem, the Environment Agency proposes that farmers should unite. It is possible that their crops will be flooded every few years, but they could receive compensation in those years. Various formulas could enable them not only to continue to operate commercially, but to play their own role in flood defence.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of appropriate managed retreats—there is one at Freiston Shore in my constituency, which he has visited—but is he aware that many farmers do not think there is enough emphasis on the importance of protecting grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land for our food production?
I have heard all the arguments. Farmers in my constituency make similar points. It is a question of balance, is it not? It must be said, in all fairness, that there have been changes in farming practice over the decades. In some instances, there has been a move away from sustainable traditional farming, particularly in wash lands and water meadows where there used to be summer grazing, towards extensive drainage pumping and a shift to monoculture. All that, incidentally, has taken place at public expense: all those pumps and drains were financed by the taxpayer. But a balance must be struck between sustainable agriculture—the importance of food production—and sustainable flood management, and I believe that the Bill paves the way for that. There are issues that it needs to address further, but it is a welcome step forward.
Surface water was a major problem in my constituency in 2007, when there was extensive flooding in the town of Kirton in Lindsey. Let me record my appreciation for the funds that the Government provided for recovery following those floods. The additional funds for North Lincolnshire council enabled it to increase the number of drains, to replace inadequate drains, and to install a proper outlet in the surface water drains at the bottom of the hill, where the town is. That could not have been done without those extra funds from the Government.
There are people on North Lincolnshire council with experience of flood management, but there are not many of them, and they are nearing retirement age. I agree with the suggestion by the Local Government Association that if local authorities are to play a more proactive role in flood management and flood planning—which I strongly support—there will have to be some support for skills, so that there are people to deal with surveys, flood risk assessments and engineering advice. My council had to bring in consultants to handle some of the technical problems, and it would be much better if that could be done in-house.
I do not have a strong opinion on two-tier councils. My local authority is unitary and therefore has responsibility for these matters, and I think that that works very well. However, where there are two-tier councils I believe that district councils need to be involved as much as possible, not least because they are the planning authorities and planning cannot be divorced from flood management. That will require some thought.
I am pleased to note the commitment given to sustainable urban drainage, of which I have always been a great supporter. I have seen one or two schemes around the country, and I think that they work very well. I believe that it is possible to gain environmental enhancements from SUDS. They can make an area look nice: green space can be used, soak-away areas can serve as paths or cycleways, there can be ponds, and there can be all sorts of different designs. There is, however, the issue of who pays for the maintenance, and it is one of the issues that have blocked the development of SUDS.
It was a great step forward to create a committee to approve and supervise SUDS, but I am still not clear about who will pay for their upkeep. There are various options, but the issue will need to be clarified in Committee. One suggestion is that those with SUDS will not have to pay drainage charges to the water companies, but someone will have to pay for the upkeep in one way or another, whether it is the water companies—which have the advantage of maintenance skills—local authorities or developers.
Along with others, I warmly welcome the clause that deals with the question of lower drainage charges for community groups, which has been raised by many Members and in the all-party parliamentary group on water, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and I are both members. I am glad that the Government have responded and are dealing with the problem. The Scunthorpe bridge club, which has tremendous support from the community—it is an ideal community group—recently moved into a former factory with a large car-parking area, and received a very large bill for drainage. Community groups are not really in a position to deal with bills like that.
There are many omissions from the Bill, but I understand the reasons for that. I am glad that it has been presented, and that it is being given its Second Reading now so that it can be included in the business programme. I know how difficult it is to secure slots in the programme, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done very well to ensure that it has reached this stage so early.
I know that it is impossible to produce a comprehensive Bill dealing with a number of controversial issues in a short period, but there is one issue that I hope my right hon. Friend will consider: the issue of water bill arrears. It would be possible to introduce fairly simple changes to give water companies the right to know where people had moved to so that they could pursue arrears. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the Conservatives would support such a move, so it is clearly not controversial. I do not think it right for the arrears of people who can pay, but will not pay, to be added to the bills of the majority of water customers. A simple measure allowing water companies to track down customers who could pay but have not done so would be very welcome.
Overall, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill. I also welcome the report of the Select Committee, which went into the issues in great detail. I believe that these measures will help flood and coastal management. Although it is impossible ever to stop floods, it is certainly possible to minimise the risk.
It is also impossible ever to stop coastal erosion, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) observed, people should not be misled by suggestions that it is possible to defend the whole of our coastline. Not only, in some cases, is it not cost-effective—we should not duck that issue—but in some cases there is no technical solution, and we must recognise that. Instead, we should be working with coastal local authorities and communities and looking at how we can minimise the impact on them. Sadly, however, that does not necessarily mean there is a solution for every part of our coastline; we should be honest about that.
I greatly welcome the Bill, and I hope that it receives support from both sides of the House and enjoys a speedy passage through its Committee stage.
My test of the Flood and Water Management Bill is whether it will help Warden Hill. It is important and right to sympathise with people in Cumbria, to remember the loss of life and to celebrate the extraordinary response of the emergency services, volunteers, friends and neighbours to both the recent floods and previous ones. We all share those sentiments. However, the real test for this Bill is whether all the strategic overviews and lead responsibilities—the national risk management strategies and flood risk management functions—will actually deliver for people in Gloucestershire, Cumbria, Yorkshire and all the other parts of the country that have now experienced severe flooding not only from river flooding but from surface and ground water flooding, or that now face increased flood risk.
We must make no mistake about this: the risk will increase. The Secretary of State has been in Copenhagen, pressing, I hope, for a tough deal to tackle global climate change. We should all thank him and other delegates from all over the world, and wish them well in their efforts and hope that they succeed, but tough deal or not, we have to face up to the reality of the effects of climate change that are already locked into the system. Scientific evidence to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear. It says:
“Basic theory, climate model simulations and empirical evidence all confirm that warmer climates, owing to increased water vapour, lead to more intense precipitation events even when the total annual precipitation is reduced slightly, and with prospects for even stronger events when the overall precipitation amounts increase. The warmer climate therefore increases risks of both drought—where it is not raining—and floods—where it is”.
With the world struggling to limit rises in global temperature to 2°, it is clear why our Environment Agency has concluded that flood events currently expected once every 100 years could be happening once every three years by the end of this century. Let us imagine the events at Cockermouth, Tewkesbury, Hull, or even Cheltenham with its 600 flooded properties, repeated in town after town, year after year, and the strain that that will put on residents, the emergency services, local authorities and those responsible for critical infrastructure, as well as on insurance companies, water companies and the Government’s flood alleviation programme, and therefore on the bills, premiums and taxes we will all have to pay. The 2007 floods alone cost the United Kingdom £3 billion; the cost to the economy of much more frequent flooding would be unimaginably high. It is absolutely critical, therefore, that in the time we have available now, before the situation reaches that level of perpetual crisis, we sort out all the problems that have been highlighted by the extreme flooding events of recent years—and not just flooding, of course, but droughts, water shortages and coastal erosion from tides and storm surges.
In tackling all these issues, it is essential that we work with nature, not against it, and I have to say that I share other hon. Members’ concerns that the Conservative approach set out by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) sounded rather Canute-like in its defiance of natural forces.
For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and other Members who have commented on my remarks, let me explain that I said that there was an opportunity for locally conceived schemes at lower cost that could defend coastal communities, and I gave the example of one in Suffolk. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that community, which took action that would otherwise not have been taken, behaved in a Canute-like manner? If it had not taken that action, the result would have been loss of farmland and other such consequences,
I obviously welcome local action to defend communities against flooding, but that was not the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s overall comments. He was clearly suggesting that trying to work with nature and not against it was the wrong approach. That was my impression, and, I think, the impression of other Members.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Not on that point, I am afraid.
The natural environment can be our ally, and our tutor, in providing more space for water, better flood risk management, more intelligent planning, more cost-effective strategies and more secure supplies, and in the process we should take the opportunity to enhance and defend native species and landscapes and biodiversity, and serve a wider environmental agenda.
The residents of Warden Hill do not just want less water flooding into their streets and houses and more flood defences—although I should thank Cheltenham borough council for the funding it has managed to obtain for those that are currently planned. Residents want affordable water and insurance bills, a pleasant and sustainable natural environment around them, and future development that does not make their problems worse and necessitate even more expensive flood defences in future, diverting increasingly precious taxpayers’ money from other services. Ideally, they also want a bit more warning next time.
How much does this Bill contribute to all these objectives? We might think that after two and a half years of multiple reviews and consultations, extensive pre-legislative scrutiny and expert advice, we would have a truly outstanding and comprehensive piece of legislation—a veritable torrent of good ideas. Sadly, however, what we have in this water Bill is more of a trickle than a torrent. It is flowing in the right direction, but there is not much of a current. It is not big enough or strong enough to tackle many of the problems highlighted by the events of the last few years. It is better than nothing after such a long wait, but it is still a disappointment.
Let us not be churlish, however. The Bill does helpfully define a flood as an event in which
“land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water.”
Well, phew, at least we have covered that one. As many hon. Members have mentioned, clause 42 rightly addresses the issue of the rain tax and community groups such as scout groups. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs claimed that as a Conservative win, but I have to say that I do not remember him spotting this any more than the rest of us did when area-based charging was first introduced. This loophole was, in effect, highlighted as a result of a very bad bit of implementation by one water company. Members on both sides of the House supported this revision, and the clause is most welcome.
The Bill takes forward some ideas from the Pitt review. We have national oversight—a “buck stops here” responsibility—for the Environment Agency. We have local lead responsibility for local authorities. Both of these measures are welcome, but although I noted the Secretary of State’s brave claim that all new net burdens on local authorities would be fully funded, back in the real world it is far from clear how exactly these provisions are to be resourced, and whether the Bill will truly sort out the bewildering tangle of responsibilities that surfaced in the floods. These are issues that the Bill Committee must explore in a lot more detail.
The issue of the maintenance of watercourses, drains and sewers has been raised time and again by local residents in many Members’ constituencies, and certainly in mine. In particular, we should explore whether the linked issue of unadopted sewers is being adequately addressed. Cheltenham resident Bridget Sansom e-mailed me saying that
“during the summer of 2007 floods, there was a backflow of sewage via the washing machine into the kitchen. This is the result of unadopted sewerage and still has not been solved two years on.”
She asked for my “comments, support and help.” Let me start by asking about the Government’s current plan for the water companies to adopt private sewers. Has that been properly accounted for? The Government recently claimed that water bills in many areas would be going down by a few pounds per household, yet the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs impact assessment on sewer transfer predicted a cost to water companies for that transfer ranging from £4 to £12 per household, and this is not included in the price review 2009 figures. This will more than offset the decrease in water bills that was claimed. So which is the truth? Are water bills going up and not down, or are the Government planning to dodge this crucial issue?
The Bill talks a lot about risk management, but the definitions appear quite limited on first reading. There is, for instance, no explicit reference to risks associated with critical infrastructure. This was a particular issue in Gloucestershire, where the loss of the Mythe water treatment works to the floods meant the loss of fresh water to thousands of people for up to two weeks, and where the absolutely catastrophic loss of electricity supply—not just, as my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) pointed out, to Gloucestershire, but to more than 500,000 people, and as far away as Wales—was only narrowly averted by the quick, co-ordinated action of gold command, Gloucestershire constabulary and the Army and other emergency services. I must declare a personal interest here, as my wife was a member of gold command.
A key Pitt recommendation was that we address this issue of critical infrastructure and, with some prescience, it referred not only to power and fresh water but to transport infrastructure. I am sure that the people of Cumbria, who have lost road and other communications, would agree with that. Pitt’s recommendation 53 stated:
“A specific duty should be placed on economic regulators to build resilience in the critical infrastructure.”
The Secretary of State has issued guidance on this issue to the regulators and yet more consultation is promised, but guidance and consultation have been issued before—as long ago as 2004—and we were still terribly exposed in 2007 and again in 2009. Work is being done to address the specific risks in Gloucestershire, and that is very much appreciated—such work may well be done in Cumbria too—but we need to consider whether or not the legal duty that Pitt recommended is necessary to protect the rest of the country and whether or not the Government are, once again, using consultation as a substitute for action.
We must also consider the personal cost. I am talking not only about the trauma and disruption of having flood water destroy and pollute one’s home or business, and the human impact of homelessness and lost possessions; after the flood water has gone and the property has been replaced or repaired, the insurance will need renewing. One of my constituents found that not only had his insurance premiums skyrocketed but the excess for flood damage had risen from £50 to £5,000. I have heard figures as high as £20,000 cited by others and in some cases flooding has been excluded as a risk altogether. That is not really insurance in the sense of a collective scheme to pool risk and protect all of us from extreme events. What added insult to injury in my constituent’s case was that since the floods the Environment Agency had spent thousands erecting a flood wall to the rear of his property, protecting him and his neighbours from a repeat of the event that flooded their houses in 2007. The insurance issues were resolved in that case, but it raises a number of questions.
First, should insurance take account of work, either at household or local level, that has reduced the risk of flooding? Secondly, should insurance companies be allowed to claim that they are insuring almost everyone and then impose such punitive premiums, excess charges or exclusions that they render someone’s policy virtually useless? It makes good business sense to sell well-targeted insurance to those at almost no risk and very little insurance to those at any risk, but that has a high social cost. In a previous decade, some insurance companies used to exclude people who had taken an HIV test. As happened then, do we not now need a collective solution that takes account of a social need? Do we not, thus, need a solution that excludes from insurance only those at a genuinely very high risk of repeated flooding where no steps have been taken to defend them or their property, and that supports the good principle of shared risk for everyone else?
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that insurance companies should not be increasing the premium to the extent that they are doing and increasing the excess? As he rightly points out, if the excess is as much as £10,000 or £15,000, people are, in effect, not insured. They are going to pay for the damage in any case, so why does the premium have to go up too?
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. These companies are getting a double benefit, especially if flood defences have, in the meantime, reduced any risk of the flood being repeated.
I complete a triumvirate of Gloucestershire MPs. One of the other problems here is the myth that somebody can shop around elsewhere for insurance cover. We all know of examples where people have been flooded and although their existing insurance company has stayed with them—of course, putting the premium up as it does so—no other insurance company would ever touch them. Such people are entirely reliant on that remaining insurance company, which can be deleterious to their position.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and the situation he describes reinforces the need for some kind of intervention in the market. All these steps make business sense for individual insurance companies—in a sense, they are only doing what businesses do naturally—but we clearly need to find a better collective solution.
The last question that all this raises is what is the long-term plan for those who really cannot be defended against flood, coastal erosion or natural hazard. In fairness, I could not possibly suggest that the insurance industry and its other customers continue to pick up the tab for properties that we now realise are not going to be viable in the long term, but are their occupants simply to be left uninsured with a property of collapsing value? My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has been a tireless champion of the rights of people placed unexpectedly in this kind of situation from faster than expected coastal erosion in his constituency. As the Secretary of State has mentioned, an innovative approach to householders at long-term risk will now be tried there and elsewhere in which householders sell and lease back their homes. My hon. Friend seems to have secured social justice for his constituents, with the support now of the Government and of the Environment Agency, but what about other people’s constituents who are facing unexpected long-term risk and who are not on the coast? On that issue, as on the others I have mentioned relating to insurance and household risk, the Bill is silent.
Another way in which individual risk could be reduced and the insurance bill minimised is through a better, faster and much more specific system of flood alerts. The Government have instituted the new flood forecasting centre, which is an impressive office in Clerkenwell, bringing together expert skills from the Environment Agency and the Met Office. That is a very impressive start, but the Met Office’s modelling and tracking of rainfall is advancing in leaps and bounds and can now predict very heavy rainfall on a very localised basis, down to a resolution of just 1 km. The current flood alert system is based on much broader, generalised flood alerts, delivered—as I remember from 2007—for days in advance. They are obviously a good thing, but a much more specific and targeted warning, even a few hours or less before a localised high rainfall event, would give people vital minutes in which to save their personal possessions. I would like to hear the Secretary of State’s views on flood alerts and on whether or not the Bill should include a mandate for a much more ambitious scheme that could save individual property and save us collectively millions of pounds.
May I also ask whether other Government policies are not actually making the situation worse? Let us return to my Warden Hill test. I have in my possession a flood catchment study map that clearly shows the contribution that nearby green fields in Leckhampton make to the retention of water in the landscape. Expensive flood defences are being built in Warden Hill, but how crazy would it be to build on those green fields and create an even greater flood risk all over again? Yet after a local visit lasting only a few minutes, Government inspectors included precisely that area in the Communities Secretary’s proposed changes to the draft south-west regional spatial strategy and earmarked it for thousands of houses. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, will know that in Tewkesbury, which is not far away from the area I am discussing, a whole new housing estate at Wheatpieces has already been given the green light in a very high flood risk area.
In a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin), confirmed that 135,000 dwellings have been built in flood risk areas in the past 10 years. According to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, across the country 27,000 hectares of green belt land is at risk of development. By definition, such land is right next to urban areas, and years ago the Foresight study rightly identified creeping urbanisation as a key factor in increasing flood risk. In one of his less robust moments, Sir Michael Pitt suggested that the current planning guidance, planning policy statement 25, should be maintained but kept under review.
We need to go much further than that, because PPS25 is hopelessly site-specific. The Environment Agency is often placated by a balancing pond here or there, and even when it does maintain opposition to a development, its advice is often ignored or overturned. We need to introduce planning policies that are created by local authorities working together, with the involvement of local people, including farmers—not by regional quangos. We need policies that address water issues on a landscape scale and with real force in planning law. The sustainable drainage provisions in the Bill are welcome, but they are wholly inadequate to deal with the scale of problem we face. As the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pointed out, the piecemeal approach in the Bill is simply not ambitious enough and the connected issue of spatial planning must be addressed.
The hon. Gentleman is touching on a subject that I have addressed in the past: whether or not the Environment Agency should, in effect, be given the powers that the Highways Agency has in relation to planning applications that have a bearing on a highway for which it is responsible. Where it objects, the application may not be determined; it cannot simply be placed before the local authority for a decision. Would a similar power, admittedly one backed up by a rather more robust Environment Agency—I have concerns about the firmness with which inappropriate developments are resisted in my own area—not be a helpful addition to the armoury?
The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point. The interlocking responsibilities and the right of appeal against decisions by national authorities such as the Environment Agency and the Highways Agency are important. There is an important emphasis, however, to be placed on local decision making and local formulation of these policies, too, and that is what I am trying to express.
Landscape-scale planning policies developed at a local level could include targets for the protection and restoration of water channels, rivers and wetlands. They could help to defend prime agricultural land for local food production, which has been mentioned several times already, for biodiversity and for landscape features such as moorlands and ancient forests. They could make a really important contribution to upstream management of water in the landscape, working with nature, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who is no longer in his place, rightly pointed out in an earlier intervention. Such a radical change to planning law would obviously require more thought and, yes, more consultation, so it would be challenging to incorporate it into this rather limited little Bill.
At the very least, the Bill could give local authorities clear powers, robust enough to be defended at planning appeals, to stop new developments in flood risk areas that they believe would contribute to flood risk. If they choose to give the go-ahead to buildings in flood risk areas, they need the power to impose planning conditions to increase resilience. We have a code for sustainable homes, but why is it still possible to build houses on flood plains with power sockets in the skirting boards? That is just one small example of how we have failed to make even quite simple, limited changes that are necessary. Incidentally, amendments to that code to enforce water efficiency and rainwater use are also long overdue.
I am glad that my hon. Friend is mentioning this point. Not only should we not build in places that will increase flood risk but, if we are going to build in an area that is likely to have a propensity to flood, it makes sense to design buildings that are resilient. Sometimes, only a minimal change is needed—a few extra feet added to the base structure, for instance, can make an enormous difference to the resilience of a building. For heaven’s sake, they knew that in prehistoric times. The lake village in Meare in Somerset records knowledge of how to build on wetland and not have a flooded house. Why have we forgotten?
I knew that my hon. Friend had long experience of such matters, but I did not realise that it went back quite that far. He is absolutely right to identify this issue. We know from long-held experience that we should build sensibly, and we seem to have abandoned that needlessly. The Association of British Insurers predicts that, unless Government policy changes, a third of the 3 million new homes that the government wants to see by 2010 will be built on flood plains and:
“Hundreds of thousands of homes could be uninsurable and uninhabitable”.
The toxic combination of inaction on planning and inaction on insurance could create a lethal cocktail. The Government’s hope that somehow voluntary agreements and the goodwill of the insurance industry are adequate to deal with this threat is just not good enough.
More is also left out of the Bill. It is a water management Bill as well as a flood Bill, but with spectacularly unjoined-up timing, it seems to have missed the opportunity to address the issues of either the Cave or Walker reviews, and it is too late to influence the water pricing regime or water companies’ plans now being put in place until 2015. It contains no reform of Ofwat’s remit, which is badly needed.
To be fair to Ofwat, it did not write its remit. It is a scary leftover from the high water mark of Thatcherism, when the only sustainability that counted was commercial and the interests of the consumer were regarded as purely economic. Issues such as the environment or social cohesion were simply not part of the equation. Other regulators, such as Ofgem, have already allowed—or been allowed to allow—sensible measures such as social tariffs to help the least well-off customers. It is high time that Ofwat was told to do likewise.
Anna Walker’s review rightly pointed out that water poverty was already becoming an issue and that it would become more of an issue if water bills had to rise, if metering became widespread and if the costs of environmental measures such as leakage control and sewage transfer were greater than expected. Walker says that we need
“A package of help…closely targeted on customers with low incomes”
and asks the UK and Welsh Governments to consider updating the guidance to Ofwat. That cannot come soon enough. We do not have to design the whole social tariff system for this Bill, but I hope that it is not too late to, at the very least, change Ofwat’s remit to stop it preventing water companies from introducing social tariffs as it does at present. The Secretary of State is looking sceptical, but he should ask the management of Dwr Cymru about their experience of Ofwat in this respect.
Given the hon. Gentleman’s interest in amending Ofwat’s remit, will he be publishing on behalf of his party its contribution to the review of the remit that Ofwat is carrying out?
I have put on the record many times my views and those of my party on Ofwat’s remit. We have published party policy, which I shall happily send to the right hon. Gentleman.
Ofwat also needs to be told that the environment can no longer be considered a subsidiary responsibility of its economic duties. The economy exists within the environment, not the other way round. We have to learn to live within environmental constraints and an obvious first step would be to break the link between resource use and company profit. It would not be rocket science to design an environmentally-friendly tariff whereby increased water use compared to historical household levels earned the household a higher bill, but the increased revenue went not into the water company’s coffers but straight into water efficiency or environmentally friendly water management measures.
All in all, the Bill is a bit of a drip when we needed a good shower. It does take welcome steps in allocating clearer responsibilities and addressing issues of sustainable drainage and flood risk management, but it leaves untouched major issues of insurance, planning and environmental issues that need to be addressed. The emergency services, the Army, the NHS, volunteers, friends and neighbours have all played their parts brilliantly, and I join the Secretary of State and others in thanking them all. However, the time has finally come for us to do our part, too. The residents of Warden Hill and of the rest of Cheltenham, as well as the residents of Gloucestershire, Cumbria, Yorkshire and the rest of the country deserve nothing less.
I welcome the Flood and Water Management Bill. I am pleased that it will receive a Second Reading this evening and I hope it is not long before it is on the statute book.
At this moment in time, the eyes of the world are rightly focused on Copenhagen and the world climate change summit. I hope that we can decide on substantial and sustainable reductions on carbon emissions this weekend. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his excellent ministerial team will do all in their power to get the right deal at Copenhagen.
I am aware that some Members of this House and others outside deny climate change and that others are sceptical about the science. I am not one of them. I accept that climate change is taking place. Instead of having the four seasons of winter, spring, summer and autumn, it seems to me that we are moving towards two prolonged seasons: spring and autumn. That assessment is, I accept, much too general, but we do face climate change.
I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) that we might not be able to blame climate change for the floods that took place in 2007 and for the floods that took place in 2009 in Cumbria. However, unless we address climate change, it is likely that flooding will become a major problem in the future. That is important to me because the most defining geographical features of my Weaver Vale constituency are the River Mersey, the River Weaver and the River Dane, the Bridgewater canal and the Weaver navigation canal.
Water is a significant feature of my constituency, and the old historic town of Northwich has a long history of flooding. In November 2000, we had floods in the town centre where the River Dane and the River Weaver come together. The measures in the Bill will make it more unlikely that we will be visited by floods in the future. I therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill to strengthen flood defences.
It is right that the Government have addressed the proposals brought forward by Sir Michael Pitt following his review of the 2007 floods. Of significant interest is the fact that the Environment Agency is to be given responsibility for developing a national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. Dovetailing with that, quite rightly, will be the Bill’s requirement that unitary and county councils should take the lead in managing the risk of all locally caused floods, and again I welcome that requirement.
In my constituency, that means that Cheshire West and Chester unitary council and Halton borough council will perform that important task. That is a step in the right direction, and I am confident that Halton borough council will play a full role in developing plans to manage risk for all locally caused floods. I have a word of caution for hon. Members, however, about the new Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority. Sadly, that council has all too quickly developed a reputation for not doing much and not listening to what local people want. Its inaction over the redevelopment of Northwich town centre following the completion of the £35 million Government-funded town stabilisation project is a case in point. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will include measures to enable the Environment Agency and DEFRA to scrutinise the council’s progress on its important role of managing floods.
I shall now turn to what has become known as the rain tax aspect of the Bill. I was glad that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said in July that the Conservative party was calling for action on the issue, although I am sure that that was not a result of the ten-minute Bill that I introduced on 12 May. That Bill would have dealt with the problem by exempting places of worship, non-profit-making sports clubs and scout and guide groups from surface water and highway drainage charges, although I should apologise for an error in my drafting because community and village halls clearly should have been included in the Bill’s scope as they, too, need to be exempt from the charges.
The introduction by United Utilities of surface area and highway drainage charges signalled a large increase in the water bills faced by scout and guide groups, places of worship, sports clubs, village halls and the like. The changes were introduced following the review by Ofwat of how water companies should charge for surface water drainage. It concluded that the fairest approach was to charge non-household customers based on the size of the site that they occupied, and that charge is called site area charging.
Astonishingly, Ofwat did not examine the impact of the change on voluntary community groups, although it warned water companies that surface area charging might have a negative impact on sensitive properties such as schools, hospitals and places of worship. In general, it warned that water companies would need to take account of the scale and speed of any changes to determine whether they were reasonable and acceptable to customers. United Utilities took Ofwat’s advice by bringing in surface area charging, but it did not take any account of the scale and speed of the changes in charging, and whether they would be reasonable and acceptable to customers.
Following reports in the media of the impact of the changes, it was not long before I was visited by community groups such as churches, sports clubs and scout groups. They had also received representations from their parent organisations warning that the way in which United Utilities had approached the situation would mean that they would be faced with seriously high drainage charges. Before the charges were introduced, such organisations had been granted significant discounts on their water bills because of their charitable status. Their bills had been based on the rateable value of the properties that they occupied, which were either zero-rated or heavily discounted.
I have previously given the House two examples of what has happened, the first of which was that the 1st Halton scout group in my constituency saw its water bill increase by 424 per cent. A church organisation has also had a problem. St. Marks church and Bethesda church, which are part of the Hallwood ecumenical parish in Runcorn, are jointly billed for water. In 2007-08, they did not pay any water rates at all, but in 2008-09 they received a charge of £181.76. That charge was set to rise to approximately £2,000 in 2010-11. The Hallwood ecumenical parish could not afford such a massive increase, so I am pleased that there has been some movement in how the matter will be dealt with. Every pound that such organisations spend on surface water drainage is one pound less for them to spend on the services they provide for their parishioners and members, and the communities they serve. Hon. Members representing all parties have rightly criticised these charges on the Floor of the House. Even Ofwat has joined in the criticism—surprisingly, because it was the author of the change itself.
In early 2009, Ofwat announce that United Utilities had agreed to a one-year moratorium during which surface area charges would be frozen at 2008-09 levels for faith buildings, community sports clubs, scout groups and guide associations. At face value, that measure was greatly to be welcomed, but I was concerned at the time that a one-year moratorium would only delay the implementation of surface area charging and would not result in a change to the charging policy that would be both acceptable and fair to these organisations that serve their communities well.
I was concerned that Ofwat made it clear to United Utilities that it should use the one-year moratorium to work with customers, to communicate the need for the new charges, and to offer advice on how customers could implement environmental improvements that will help them to reduce their costs significantly. It also said that United Utilities would use the moratorium to create a new time frame for the implementation of surface area charging by spreading the remaining charge over a longer period to give customers time to put in place measures to offset future costs and benefit the environment.
On that basis, at the beginning of 2010-11, places of worship, community sports clubs, scout groups, Guide associations and village halls would have been faced with substantially larger bills for drainage. Simply altering the implementation date for surface area charging was not the solution that those organisations were looking for. They wanted a scheme that would put them back in their position prior to the change.
To complicate things—and to make matters worse—Ofwat made it clear to water companies that it would not approve any tariffs for surface area charging that involved cross-subsidies, that were based on rateable values or that involved exemptions. It also instructed all water companies that their tariffs for surface area charging would have to be approved by November 2009. Conversely, it did not say what types of charges, other than surface area charging, would be acceptable.
Throughout the whole exercise, the Government kept a close eye on proceedings. I pay particular tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who has dealt with the problem fantastically. I was also delighted when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in his party conference speech in late September that he would bring forward measures to address the problem. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward the Bill, which will give water companies the power to introduce concessionary schemes for surface area drainage charges for amateur sports clubs, scout groups, places of worship and other community groups.
Will my hon. Friend join me—and, I am sure, others in the Chamber—in sending a message to the water companies that if they do not take advantage of the discretion now, they will risk not only driving such organisations into the ground but reducing their customer base?
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I am about to address his point about the water companies’ introduction of the concessionary scheme.
I hope that confirmation will be put on record during the wind-ups that the Government envisage that the community groups covered by the Bill will include guide associations and village halls, because it is important that they are included in its provisions.
The Bill could end the unfair rain tax, but it will do so only if it contains a mandatory requirement for the water companies to provide concessionary schemes for surface area water charges for community groups. I understand that the powers on concessionary charging are permissive, not mandatory. I will be looking to the Government to bring forward measures, either by amending the Bill in Committee or through the guidance that will be issued with it, to make it compulsory for water companies to introduce concessionary tariffs for community groups if they want site area charging for surface and highway drainage.
Having established the principle of concessionary charging for surface water, I believe that the Bill will need to go further if it is to achieve its declared aim of getting rid of the rain tax. The Government need to define, either in the Bill or in guidance, what constitutes a fair and affordable charge for drainage so that the concessionary charges will be fair and affordable. The Bill will not achieve its aim of scrapping the rain tax if water companies are permitted to levy unreasonable charges on community groups for surface water drainage. To lock the concessionary scheme into place and ensure the compliance of the water companies in getting rid of the rain tax, I believe that Ofwat should be given statutory powers to oversee the implementation of the concessionary charging scheme. That would make Ofwat part of the solution, and stop it being part of the problem.
I want the Government to go one step further. Under the scheme that meant that water bills were calculated on rateable values, scouts and other groups benefited by receiving considerable discounts. I would like the water companies to be given the power once again to offer scouts, guides, places of worship, amateur sports clubs, village halls and other community groups discounts on their surface water drainage bills, over and above any concessionary tariffs that is charged.
This flexibility, which is being called for by the scouting organisations and others, would ensure that the rain tax would really become a thing of the past. Scouts, guides, places of worship, amateur sports clubs, village halls and other community groups would then be able to get on with their primary function of providing top-quality services for their members and the communities that they serve.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to Stella Creasy of the Scouts Association for the excellent work that she and her organisation have done on the important issue of putting an end to the inequitable rain tax.
I commend the measures to the House.
This may well be the last speech that I make on a piece of environmental legislation before I retire at the next election. I have the honour of chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we have done a number of reports on flooding and the implementation of the Pitt review. We have also been involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, so I felt it only right to make a final and modest contribution to this debate.
I am grateful for the kind words from the Secretary of State acknowledging the work that the Committee has done, and I should like to begin by putting on record my appreciation of the work done by the Committee’s staff. The Clerks, the inquiry managers and our special advisers are the unsung heroes of parliamentary scrutiny work. They do not get the headlines or the opportunity to speak in debates like this, but pre-legislative scrutiny of the quality that we have been able to achieve would not take place without their efforts.
Perhaps controversially in the light of observations made in the debate so far, our report recommended a delay in introducing this legislation. That was not because we did not want the Environment Agency and others to take on an important co-ordinating role in developing a flood-risk strategy, especially given the failure of the surface water arrangements that was exposed in 2007. We want that strategy to come into force, but our report was a way of putting down a marker. As so many contributions have already suggested, the issue of water cannot easily be disaggregated into a lot of little bits and pieces. As the Secretary of State’s own policy document, “Making space for water”, acknowledges, all the functions have to be integrated.
For example, we must take account of Anna Walker’s review of how water should be paid for, and how we can optimise its use and minimise its waste. We must also heed the other work that has been done on competition in the water industry, and the question of who is responsible for what in any aspect of the management of water. That inevitably means that this is a big and complex matter—as witnessed by the fact that the original Bill had 269 clauses. In contrast, the Bill before us today has been reduced to 49 clauses and four annexes. That is a remarkable piece of editorial activity, and I congratulate the drafters on their achievement.
I will give way to my hon. Friend in just a moment. The other reason for the Committee’s approach was to put down a marker that made it clear that whoever forms the next Government will have to undertake to return to this matter early in the new Parliament. By that time, the new Government will have had a chance to digest Anna Walker’s findings in particular. They will also have had a chance to address the question of affordability, and to learn from debates like this about some of the many issues that have not been touched on.
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who is an honourable member of my Committee.
I thank my right hon. Friend, as I shall call him, for giving way. He has been an excellent Chair of the EFRA Committee. Like him, I am standing down at the election and the last few years on his Committee have been very rewarding indeed. Does he recall the visit that the Committee paid to Lyons to look at the integrated approach taken there to flood prevention and management? Is he concerned that one possible flaw in this welcome Bill is that the local authorities that will take on a great deal of the local responsibility for these matters will have inadequate resources, skills or knowledge to be able to do so effectively?
My hon. Friend brings me on to two points that I wanted to touch on. The first is that I think that all of us must be honest with ourselves and with the public about what can be afforded, and what cannot. The Secretary of State will no doubt remind the House when he winds up that the Government have increased spending on flood-prevention measures. I think that the total will be £1 billion by 2011, but the Association of British Insurers has suggested that expenditure should be as high has £1.5 billion. When the implementation of the Pitt proposals was costed, Pitt himself indicated that there was an inadequacy of funding.
We must be realistic. In the current circumstances, we cannot, for example, protect everything by means of hard-engineering solutions. One of the outcomes of the work to be done on risk assessment and the development of a strategy should be to fulfil the objective set out in clause 3, where it speaks of
“preparing, gathering and disseminating maps, plans, surveys and other information”
for communities. Communities must be informed about the risks they face. More importantly, they must be informed about what risks can be dealt with—and, more importantly still, what risks cannot be dealt with.
The subject of resilience has already made an appearance in this debate, and quite rightly so. I do not think that we spend enough time on that. One of the most impressive groups of witnesses to come before the Committee came from the National Flood Forum. The forum operates something like a British standard that delineates what equipment works and what does not, but it also has a great deal of experience in giving people in communities guidance on how to make things resilient.
The tragedies of Cumbria and Boscastle have made me wonder whether people in those communities were aware that there were risks that could not be engineered away. If they were so aware, could they, with adequate notice and advice, have prepared themselves better to protect their existing properties?
All that is notwithstanding the observations that have been made about building new properties above flood-risk areas. I very much agree with the observations that many hon. Members have made already about planning and building in flood plain areas. We need to be much harder with ourselves and work to stop increasing flood risk.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire made a very good point about our trip to Lyons. The city lies at the confluence of two of France’s major rivers, and it is very interesting to see how the authorities there have integrated their flood defences both regionally and locally. They have built massive sustainable urban drainage schemes, and the integration of those SUDS with the protection of the built environment is very impressive. It provides some very important lessons for how we might do the same here.
However, when we look at how the Bill is drafted, there is a subtlety about clause 3 and the way that it integrates with clause 7. We as legislators must read the definition of “risk” with care, and I hope that the Committee that succeeds the one that I chair will examine carefully how all those tasked with developing the new strategies deal with that definition. We must make rigorously certain that “risk” incorporates all the things that have been mentioned in the debate so far, and that a response to those risk elements is part of the Environment Agency’s strategy. If we do that then, with the right degree of scrutiny and pressure from parliamentarians, we can use the subtlety of the drafting to ensure that we can at least have the right shopping list, so to speak, of the things that must be responded to. Thereafter, we can examine critically way whether we have the resources and the wherewithal to deal with any problems that might arise.
One thing that worries me is whether we have, in sum total, the right degree of expertise, especially with regard to engineers skilled in the management of water. The Environment Agency has taken steps to address that issue, but it strikes me that those particular talents will be in very great demand, especially among the local authorities at county level that will be in charge of implementing some of these strategic matters.
Water does not recognise political boundaries. I hope the Committee will examine carefully whether, in developing strategies on political boundaries, we have the mechanisms for catchment areas to knit things together. One of the problems arising from the truncated Bill is that the flood risk management plans that are part of the EU floods directive implementation process are dealt with by statutory instrument outwith the scope of the Bill. I understand why, for legislative reasons, the Government are doing that, but the danger is that the legislation implementing the European directive remains outside the integrating function of the Bill. I seek reassurance from the Secretary of State in his winding-up speech that the gluing together of the parts will take place.
One of the things missing from the Bill is the requirement for the Environment Agency to prepare river maps showing who is responsible for what. That seems to me to be part of the requirements of the EU floods directive. We can immediately see the complexity and the problem of integrating all the parts so that the strategy developed by the Environment Agency will work in reality. I hope the Secretary of State will address the issue in his winding-up speech or when the Bill goes into Committee.
We have talked a great deal this evening about SUDS. Our Committee looked, for example, at highway drainage. When the 2007 events occurred, our highways became the drainage channels to rivers in such a way that the rivers could not accommodate the water running off so quickly. “Slow water” is a phrase that has been used in the debate this evening. Anything that slows things down is a good idea. The integration of sustainable urban drainage solutions for highways is jolly good but, as the Government said:
“We recognise that there is currently no incentive for highway authorities to install sustainable drainage systems because the cost of highway drainage is met by water customers.”
That is the kind of risk factor which, if it is teased out at the planning stage of the development of the risk strategy, we might be able to mitigate, but it requires a burden shift in terms of funding. We see the same questions recurring about resources and who has the money to deal with these complicated issues. In Committee some of the real-world challenges posed by flooding should be tested out.
In the Bill, the implications of climate change are a feature to be examined in the context of the development of the strategy. One of the things that increasingly worries me, and which the sad events in Cumbria underscore, is that a once in 1,000-years event can occur. I was asked about this in the context of our existing flood defence systems. In a city such as London, the highway drainage system is scoped to deal with a one in 30-year event. What would happen in London if a once in 1,000-years event occurred? We would have catastrophic flooding, but can we afford to scope up our drainage system by a factor of 30 to cope with that? The answer is probably no. That is why we must be honest when we look at what we can and cannot do, and prepare accordingly.
The Bill is silent on the critical infrastructure but—coming back to the question of risks and picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood)—that can be incorporated in the risks and therefore encompassed by the strategy of the Environment Agency. If the Bill deals with the risks of reservoirs, the question of the integrity of bridges needs to be re-examined.
Cumbria taught us a rude and painful lesson. Structures which we thought were impervious to the effects of flooding certainly were not. A new dimension of community disruption occurred which none of the previous flooding events in this country had illustrated. Although the Bill is silent on that, the powers and the responsibilities, particularly of county highway authorities, should be re-examined to make sure that there is a duty upon them to re-examine bridge structures regularly to determine whether they are capable of withstanding the type of event that occurred in Cumbria.
One of the aspects that we should reflect on, which emerged from the evidence that we received, is that in the areas that we represent, all of us have a much more articulate constituency of members of the public who are now infinitely better informed about every aspect of flooding. They know about water courses, they have local knowledge, and they are vociferous in arguing their corner. They are a very important part of the process that the Bill deals with. If we as politicians do not recognise the human dimension—the public dimension—all our discussions about flooding, water charging and so on will be the poorer. We must acknowledge the role of the informed member of the public and make certain that they are properly involved in the consultation processes for which the Bill provides as part of the strategy that the Environment Agency is to introduce.
I conclude by saying that I, too, am delighted that the Bill deals with the surface area water charging regime. However, I have one concern. The Bill rightly identifies one group of people who can benefit from positive discrimination. I support that, but on the issue of the affordability of water, individual citizens may look slightly jealously at that part of the Bill and say, “What about us?” In supporting the intent of the Bill, I hope that whoever forms the next Government will return to the question early in the next Parliament and complete the task that the Bill begins.
rose—
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), I should give notice that after his speech, the limit will be reduced to 10 minutes in an effort to ensure that those who have been waiting will get a chance to contribute.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Chairman of the Select Committee. In view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be relatively brief.
The Government have been criticised tonight, first for not acting quickly enough on the Pitt recommendations, and secondly for not having a broad enough Bill. I think the Government have brought forward a Bill that is well focused and important. Above all, it can be passed within the next 12 parliamentary weeks; it is important to do the business.
Those who have spoken about the Cave and Walker reports should reflect on the fact that affordability and competition are difficult issues. Those who have been involved with abstraction licences for many years, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), know how difficult they are and how difficult it is to get a response from the National Farmers Union allowing them to go forward.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Such issues would be difficult to tackle in total during the passage of the Bill, but would he not accept a simple amendment of Ofwat’s remit to allow water companies to produce social tariffs to help some of our least well off constituents? That would be a simple measure which I am sure we could manage in the months ahead.
That would not be a simple amendment, and social tariffs are not an easy issue. Those of us who will be involved in the Energy Bill know how difficult it is. Such issues will be dealt with not in Committee, but by secondary legislation. The EU flood regulation measure is before the House by way of a statutory instrument. It includes maps and assessments of flood risk, and it is disappointing that it looks as though the House will not have the opportunity to discuss those matters.
The essential point of today’s debate has been about the 2007 floods. They focused our attention not on river flooding, which had been the discussion in the past, but on surface water flooding. Right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have made it very clear that there are no easy solutions to the problem, but in the course of my work either in Nottinghamshire or on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee people have said to me, “Oh, it’s simple: you just keep the drains clear.” Given the volume of intense rain, however, drains will not be able to cope in the future. We are living in a different world and in a different environment, and that is why the points that the right hon. Member for Fylde made—about being clear with people, working with them and giving them an understanding of the risk—are so important.
It is also important to introduce a set of responsibilities, and the Bill defines them. I am a great supporter of the Environment Agency, and I believe that it has the flexibility not to act in a centralising way, because people in their areas know the problems. If they are allowed to work together, they can find the solutions, too, so the notion of lead authorities is important. In my local authority of Nottinghamshire, the county council, as the agency with responsibility for highways, will take the lead, and I know that it will work closely with the district councils. In some areas, local authorities are able to propose solutions, but it is important that they have the resources to do so. I am not as confident as some of my Front-Bench colleagues that the measures in the Bill—the savings that will be made from the adoption of private sewers—will be sufficient to enable local authorities to make major progress. Nor am I confident that local authorities have the skills, because many councils lost those skills at the time of water privatisation, so there is a big training responsibility that needs to be taken forward.
It is important also to mention the two types of bodies that have been an unsung presence in today’s discussion. They are the regional flood and coastal committees and the internal drainage boards. The best internal drainage boards are really very good, but the pattern throughout the country is patchy. The strength of internal drainage boards, however, is that their members know the solutions, and if they are prepared to engage and work with other parties, they will make progress.
I am pleased that regional flood and coastal committees are going to continue. There had been some discussion about their future, but their levy power is important, because it provides the committee with a sum of money that belongs to itself, enabling the introduction of innovative solutions and steps that the Environment Agency would not be able to take. In the Trent valley in Nottinghamshire, for example, funds from the regional levy have enabled the introduction of adaptation measures, which would never have been on the Environment Agency’s list of priorities.
Another important issue, which has been characterised in today’s debate, is the notion of working with the environment. We must continue to move away from the belief that concrete is the solution to everything. Farming practices can make a real difference, and we need to work in upland areas to ensure that peat bogs are not denuded but are the sponge—the moss—that soaks up water. The notion of working with the environment really is important.
However, it is also important that we recognise the power of the environment—the power of the sea. I was slightly concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who seemed to imply that one could always protect the coast. That is quite manifestly wrong. The notion of managed retreat will have to be discussed openly and rationally with local people, who clearly have major concerns. It is no good saying to them that there will be environmental and conservation benefits from such an approach. There will be, but we will have to talk to people very openly about the cost and the fact that things are going to change. It is no good promising that all farmland can be protected. It helps nobody at all, and if that is the Opposition’s policy they need to reflect on it.
I have long been an advocate of sustainable urban drainage systems. They can make a big impression on and difference to the landscape, but we need to remember that SUDS are very different: there are high-technology solutions and softer, grassland solutions. We need to be aware of the connection between SUDS and the existing drainage system, too. There is not an either/or choice, because the two interrelate. We must have further discussions with people such as the Home Builders Federation about that relationship, and we need to be absolutely clear that SUDS will continue to cost money in the future. We need to make it clear also that local authorities should be responsible for SUDS, because they have the planning powers and they are good at looking after recreational areas and open spaces. None the less, there is an argument for involving water companies, but they are conspicuously absent from that aspect of the Bill.
I promised to keep my remarks brief, but I shall say a few words about sewers, which have not been discussed today. Clause 41 makes it clear that new developments will have to involve the adoption and maintenance of sewers of a sufficient standard. Members with a long memory of the issue will remember that we had a voluntary arrangement, but that simply has not worked, so the statutory powers in the Bill are quite important. We must ensure that there are no problems in the future, and the clause includes a new code of practice, but it needs to be discussed with others. It is not an easy issue; it is a technological issue. There is a view among builders and developers that it has not been sufficiently discussed, and, as we are talking about introducing the measure next year, in 2010, such discussions need to take place.
My final point is about the adoption of private sewers, an issue that is conspicuously absent from the Bill. I have been campaigning for almost 20 years for the adoption of private sewers.
We know!
My hon. Friend has heard it all before.
I do not want rhetoric; I want reality. I want action on the issue, and the Secretary of State promised action. We need it, because all over the country, including in my constituency in Nottinghamshire, householders are affected by private sewers. When their houses and gardens are flooded by foul sewers, it is a dreadful experience.
We need to ensure that those sewers are adopted. The Secretary of State says that he will do so, and he will, but he needs to get on with it. We were promised not only a consultation on private sewers, but their adoption by 2011. However, I say to my right hon. Friend, at whom I am pointing to reinforce my statement, that that consultation has yet to appear, and we were promised its appearance by Christmas. I want private sewers to be adopted by 2011, but unless the Secretary of State and his officials put their foot down, that deadline will retreat into the distance.
This debate might be my final chance to discuss environmental issues in the House, as it might be for the right hon. Member for Fylde. I have campaigned for more than 20 years to have private sewers adopted, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe has helped me. I therefore say to the Secretary of State: make my day, make the promise, publish the consultation tomorrow and ensure that private sewers are adopted by 2011.
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping).
I should like to start by thanking the Secretary of State—I suppose belatedly, although I am sure that I said the same thing at the time—for all the help he gave to and interest he took in Tewkesbury at the time of the floods. He was extremely helpful. He readily came over to visit and was always available on the phone. That help was much appreciated by my constituents, and again I thank him for it.
I am not taking it personally that I am the first speaker on the Conservative Benches to have his time curtailed; I think that it is probably because I spoke in the Queen’s Speech debate on this issue. However, I make no apology for returning to it today because it is so very important.
I want to run through a few aspects that are lacking from the Bill or that I would like strengthened. Of course, as has been said from the Front Bench, Conservative Members support the Bill. We welcome its early introduction after the Queen’s Speech in the hope that we can get it through before Parliament is dissolved for a general election. However, if we are to take advantage of its introduction, there are changes that should be made; I am sure that those decisions will be made in Committee.
We have heard a little about house building. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who said that we should not build houses in the wrong places. He also mentioned the way in which houses are built. The famous and iconic picture of Tewkesbury abbey surrounded by water was seen everywhere; people remember it in countries that I have been to all over the world. It is important to point out that although the abbey was surrounded by water, it did not flood. The Normans started to build the abbey at the end of the 11th century. People knew where to build and how to build in those days; it seems that we have forgotten about those skills. We must try to build houses that are not only flood resistant but do not displace water and cause problems for other houses. I am not sure whether it is entirely possible to do that, although I know that new drainage systems are being discussed; sumps have been mentioned tonight. We must also start to build houses to take account of the power that they will require in the light of climate change. I know that that is a different subject, but we have talked a lot about it, so it is relevant.
Above all, we have to ask ourselves why my Tewkesbury constituency suffered so badly. The regional spatial strategy proposes to build 14,500 extra houses in what is clearly a flood risk area. Those figures are based on what the south-west regional assembly is suggesting and on the Government’s projection that we need 3 million more houses by 2026, but there is no scientific basis for making those estimates. When this Government came to power, they said, correctly, that they were going to end the “predict and provide” approach to housing, but they have not only reinforced that approach but regionalised it, thereby taking the decisions away from local people. That is much to be regretted. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who kindly mentioned several places in my constituency, including Warden Hill, Leckhampton and Wheatpieces, was absolutely right to suggest that those new build figures should be revisited. I believe that they should be scrapped and we should think again about where we are going to build houses. In that respect, I am not satisfied with the Bill because I do not think it will stop the building of houses on flood risk areas.
Another important issue became evident during the fight to save the area—I do not think that it is too dramatic to describe it as such given that some people lost up to three weeks’ water supply, we almost lost the county’s entire electricity supply and, tragically, we lost three lives. It became obvious to me that it was extremely difficult to pinpoint which organisation was responsible for maintaining a waterway or water feature, whether it be a culvert, a stream, a brook, or whatever we want to call it. As a result, there was a delay in clearing or repairing that waterway, which created great difficulty. One of the reasons why people did not want to accept responsibility for a given waterway was that they would then have the responsibility for fixing it, which costs money. I am glad that several hon. Members have made that point. When we set out to give responsibility to different organisations, as we should, we must ensure that we identify who is responsible for which waterway and that they are sufficiently funded to carry out the work that we require them to do. I am not sure that the Bill goes far enough to satisfy me in that respect.
As has been noted, it is not enough to act only in emergencies. Welcome as that aid is at the time, it is too late by then. We need to ensure that all the waterways are maintained throughout the year. As I said in the Queen’s Speech debate, if we drive cars, we should, if we are sensible, have them serviced regularly and not let them break down before we do anything with them. It is the same with waterways: we must ensure that they are cleared and maintained. We must also ensure—this was not happening before the flooding—that riparian owners of certain waterways carry out their maintenance. As far as I can see, local authorities have not been doing that.
As I said, we lost the water supply and almost lost the electricity supply; some people lost electricity for a while. We need to provide alternative sources of utilities. People in my constituency and, I am sure, in other constituencies, had an extremely difficult time in going without water for so long. The heroic efforts of the armed forces, the emergency services and ordinary volunteers, including children, to get water supplies to houses warmed the heart; nevertheless, we do not want to have to go through that again. I hope that alternative supplies of water and electricity can be set up; at least, we should ensure that places such as Mythe waterworks and Walham electricity substation are properly protected.
There are many other issues that I could raise, but alas I am running out of time and cannot do so in any great detail. On insurance, of course, as I said in an earlier intervention, we must appreciate that insurance companies are businesses that must make profits; we require them to exist, so they have to be financially solvent. However, in some cases they have been unduly harsh on many of their customers by increasing excesses to as much as £10,000 or £15,000—even £20,000 in a case that I have heard of—at the same time as increasing premiums. If somebody has an excess of £10,000 or £15,000 for water damage, they are effectively not insured against that, so why do they have to pay an increased premium? That is most unfair. Although it is welcome that flood defences are undertaken in so many places—several schemes have been completed in my own area—that can sometimes make things worse as regards getting insurance. One or two companies may say, “Oh, that is a flood risk area. Those people are in danger—we won’t insure them or we’re going to put the excesses up.” That is very unfair. I know that the Government have expressed concern about that practice, and I hope that they will carry on talking to insurance companies about it.
I first put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department for working closely with me over the past few years on flood solutions in my constituency. Like many MPs who represent former mining communities, since the closure of our collieries and the underground watercourse base, I have seen increased flooding in small mining communities year in, year out. By 2002, that culminated in flooding in my constituency not once every 70 years but once, twice or three times a year, affecting the same communities, families and small businesses. Some 90 per cent. of small businesses affected by sewer water flooding never reopen their doors, and they are totally lost to the family and the community. Increasingly, communities had come to feel besieged by their inability to get investment projects that could provide solutions to the problems that they faced. They consequently found it increasingly difficult to get support for the insurance and reinsurance of their properties.
In 2004, the situation got to a point at which a radical solution had to be found. United Utilities, the local council and the Environment Agency, with the support of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, came up with a co-ordinated plan to reorganise and re-engineer the way they worked—the establishment of a local community flood forum, elected by and on behalf of the community and funded and resourced by United Utilities. That body was important in developing an investment plan to deal with all the flooding problems. Investment needs were identified for engineering solutions or, where those were not possible, for mitigation solutions. The forum engaged with and involved the community at every stage.
This year we have not had a major flood in the community, because of the multi-million pound investment that has taken place with the engagement and involvement of the community, United Utilities, the local authority and the Environment Agency. Next February the next phase will take place, following further consultation with the community flood forum. There will be a further range of investments to improve even further the potential of engineering and mitigation solutions in communities where flooding is likely in the next few years. That next phase is preventive.
All that was achieved with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). When he was a Minister, he and I persuaded Ofwat in 2005 to change its arrangements and take sewer water flooding in communities more seriously. Frankly, however, Ofwat has not had its eye on the ball in the past decade. On every occasion, it has underestimated the number of houses that can be affected by surface and sewer water flooding. It has not taken seriously enough the capacity of the insurance industry to turn a blind eye to the continuing problem on many occasions.
The Bill is important in ensuring that we implement much of Sir Michael Pitt’s inquiry. I gave him written and verbal evidence about the experiences of our community in Wigan. In 2005, as a Minister, I wrote a report on how we should better co-ordinate investment in Carlisle following the flooding, to ensure that there was a structure to deal with flooding from the River Eden and to bring together all the investment strategies of Cumbria county council, the city of Carlisle, the regional development agency and the Government. That all needed to be put together in a co-ordinated way, with the involvement of the community and under the leadership of the city council, not only so that there were preventive measures for the future but so that from the carnage that took place in Carlisle in January 2005, there would come restructuring, reinvestment and reinvigoration in the city.
It is important that the lessons are learned from all such events, including those in 2007 and this year. The Bill must ensure that each and every community has the ability to ensure that it has all the agencies working together effectively. We must consider the potential of using the model of community engagement and involvement that we have created in Wigan, and seeing whether it can be effectively replicated in other areas to ensure that communities have ownership and control in all circumstances. They must have a way of engaging with the utilities, local authorities and the Environment Agency to handle these matters.
There is much to be said, and I reserve the right to return to many points on Report, but I know that other colleagues wish to contribute, so I shall finish with insurance. I know that the Government came to an agreement with the Association of British Insurers on a code of practice and all that goes with it. Welcome though that is, I have constituents who are still being refused access to insurance products. We still do not have a system of shared risk in place in Britain. There is shared capital risk, for instance through my constituents supporting people in Carlisle and Cumbria, and quite rightly so, but there is no shared insurance risk. The greater the risk of properties flooding, the more individuals and communities are left bereft of proper coverage.
In 1982, as a young local councillor, I helped persuade my council and the insurance industry to introduce a tenants and leaseholders insurance scheme. It was the first in the country, and now hundreds of schemes on that model are operating effectively and providing insurance cover for every tenant who wants it, paid through their rent in an affordable and accessible way. As the years go by, we have to find a way of having an affordable and accessible insurance system paid through people’s water rates, so that we can share the risk. The ability to pay must be paramount, and people must have insurance cover in all circumstances so that we share the risk and the cost of investment. Unless we have such a system in place, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens will be unable to be insured in the decades to come, through no fault of their own. We need such a radical solution.
I have made a written submission about that scheme to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris), and his officials are coming to my constituency soon to meet tenants and the local authority to discuss how it operates. If we can operate it effectively now for housing insurance costs, without undermining the marketplace, why can we not do it in relation to the flooding problem? What problem do ABI members have with doing that now? The problem will not go away, and it will be exacerbated in the years to come.
Everybody should have the right to affordable and accessible insurance, and the risk should be shared. If the Bill cannot ensure that, we should be looking to find other means of ensuring that it happens. Without it, the cost to the public Exchequer of uninsured properties and families will be not millions but billions in the years to come. We need to sit down with the insurance industry, be tougher and come up with a workable set of proposals. Although Sir Michael Pitt decided in the end against the introduction of such a scheme, the evidence is there in his report that it can and will work. We must ensure that we introduce it. If my hon. Friend cannot give us a decision about it this evening, I hope that we can return to the matter at some stage during the Bill’s passage and put pressure on the ABI. What has happened so far is welcome, but it is not radical enough and does not go far enough. It will no go far enough until every community has affordable, accessible insurance so that if it is flooded, the consequence is not a total loss of business or family income and a disaster that takes years and years to recover from.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Bill will be very helpful if the Government listen to the comments and thoughts in hon. Members’ contributions and take them forward for further consideration in Committee.
I wish to focus my comments on flood risk and water management in the planning process. It is absolutely right that they have a prominent place in it, and the Bill gives us the opportunity to develop it further. Many of our constituents assume that the availability of water and the ability to dispose of waste water are part of the process, and that the importance of not building on flood plains is integral to the process when it is decided to build new houses or commercial developments. It is right that the Bill looks at how we can put the emphasis on the prevention rather than the cure for such problems, although that does not take away from the comments that have been made tonight on the losses suffered by families and communities who have experienced the dreadful nature of flooding, particularly in recent months.
The Bill provides an opportunity to make water and flood management integral to the planning process. Clause 9 provides the opportunity for lead local authorities in England to develop, maintain and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management in their areas, which includes
“surface runoff…groundwater, and…ordinary water courses”
and to put in place an assessment of local flood risk management—clause 10 does the same for Wales. However, a number of questions have been asked about that enhanced role for local authorities, particularly on the apparent rigidity within the Bill concerning the boundary areas within which local authorities can operate their new ability to look at water and flood risk management. Additionally, the Select Committee said that the way in which the Bill was currently drafted potentially precluded a more pragmatic, cross-boundary approach to planning when it comes to water and flood issues.
In my own constituency in north Hampshire, infrastructure management is not bound by borough or district boundaries or hemmed in by county boundaries. We regularly look at how we can plan our infrastructure management across not only one county boundary but two. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Chairman of the Committee, said in his contribution today, water knows not political boundaries. Will the Minister say how we can ensure that the important provision in the Bill to help local authorities to have a more active role is not curtailed or hemmed in? There is probably a need to think further about how the Bill can be more flexible to reflect existing local operations.
The importance of local knowledge is another matter that hon. Members have spoken about in the debate. The encouragement of borough and county councils to be involved in flood risk planning will give councillors and their local residents the ability to ensure that proposed plans include local knowledge, including a community’s experience of floods over many generations.
Does the Minister feel that, within the devolution of responsibility for flood and water management to local level—borough or county—there is a lack of read-across between the Bill and the policies of some of his colleagues in other Departments? I am thinking particularly of his colleagues who set house building targets in the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is good that the Bill devolves the management of such important issues to a very local level, yet house building, which is one of the things that flooding most impacts, is still primarily dictated by his right hon. and hon. Friends in Whitehall—I am talking about decisions on the number of houses that are going to be built and where they will be built. I have experience of that in my constituency.
Obviously, if house building is dictated centrally, it is difficult for local authorities to avoid building on greenfield sites, which results in the flooding problems that other hon. Members have talked about. Indeed, building on flood zones is very much against the will and wishes of local councillors and local residents, including in the east of Basingstoke in my constituency. There is also very little that local authorities can do about building on brownfield sites, which can be the cause of so many problems, including surface water run-off. Those problems read across to other areas of Government policy, and they need some firm consideration before the Bill passes through the House.
As the Secretary of State said, the Bill has to be in a slimmed-down form so that it can progress speedily, but we should not let it be a missed opportunity on insurance—other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned that. There needs to be a better alignment between insurance companies’ perception of flood risk and the actual flood risk. Perhaps the experience of my constituents living near Petty’s brook in Chineham, a ward in my constituency, is not atypical—other hon. Members will have had the same problem. Insurance companies perceive that there is a greatly enhanced risk of flooding, even though people in that area have had quite rigorous reassurance from local authorities and the Environment Agency. Will the Minister consider whether local authorities could have a role in monitoring that and in pressing insurance companies to ensure that they are correctly assessing risks and not inflating them in a way that is not in the best interests of our constituents?
Clause 27 deals with the incredibly important issue of sustainable development. The Government could provide some important clarity on this matter. The clause requires lead local authorities to take account of the natural environment when ensuring that development is sustainable. There is an opportunity in the clause for the Minister to issue guidance on how local authorities might interpret that and clarify what they mean. Some clarity could be found in the consultation, which mentions the opportunity better to link planning and water quality management under the water framework directive. There is an opportunity for a more integrated approach to water management, which the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) touched on. We cannot think about one aspect of water without thinking about the others—we cannot look at supply without looking at disposal—yet the Bill does not explicitly deal with that. I am sure that the guidance provides an opportunity to do so.
The reason why the Bill is particularly important in my constituency is that we have just undertaken a water cycle report at the request of the south-east regional authority. The level of house building in my constituency was called into question because of the inability of the River Lodden to deal with the considerable levels of pollution within it. Unfortunately, the report shows us that the level of house building will do nothing to reduce pollution in the river. Such things need to be taken into consideration far more in future house building targets. The Bill gives an opportunity to make it clear that local authorities have an obligation in their new role as managers of implementation. That would add to the impact of the Bill in our communities.
I should have liked to comment on a great many other measures in the Bill, not least the privatisation of sewers and the implications of that for local authorities, which is important, and the aspects that relate to local community organisations, but I shall draw my comments to a close there.
I wish to return to the statutory duty for flood rescue, which I raised when I intervened on the Secretary of State. I apologise if he addressed it—I was hanging on his every eloquent word, but I may have nodded off or been distracted.
It is important when we frame legislation such as this Bill that we take into account the views of those who will be at the front line of implementing it. I am one of the founding members of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. I have therefore tried to consult the FBU on its concerns about the legislation. It is important to take on board its views following the 2007 floods. The FBU met those of its members who had been on the front line dealing with the floods and undertook a detailed consultation on their experiences on the ground. The report that the FBU published as a result said:
“The health, safety and welfare of fire crews were put at risk during the floods through insufficient planning, equipment and training. Firefighters should not have had to wade through contaminated water wearing unsuitable protective equipment and exposing themselves to health hazards.”
Another aspect that came up in the discussions with fire crews was confirmation that they
“have not been trained consistently to the standards necessary to deal with the range of water-related incidents they have to tackle.”
After the consultation the FBU undertook with its members on the 2007 floods, it concluded that the Government should introduce a statutory duty on fire and rescue authorities to respond to significant water-related events such as flooding, and make the necessary resources available to meet these obligations. That was confirmed by the Pitt review which made the recommendation that I quoted earlier—that there should be a statutory duty placed on fire and rescue authorities for flood rescue in particular. Pitt went on to reject non-statutory alternatives. It said:
“The Review strongly believes that a statutory duty is the best means to achieve these outcomes.”
It said that other non-statutory, voluntary approaches
“do not provide the certainty the public expect and the Review believes is needed.”
Interestingly enough, the Government seemed to concur with those views, and have done so for some time. In the regulatory impact assessment in 2007, the Government backed a statutory duty. The RIA stated that
“relying on FRAs’ discretionary powers, even where they receive central funding, means that they could still decline to use the specialist resources to aid other authorities”—
in major incidents—
“or in future decide to stop maintaining the capabilities provided by Government.”
So the Government were concerned at that time that without a statutory duty they could not rely on the fire and rescue authorities to respond effectively or to maintain the capability of that response. The RIA also said that
“authorities have an incentive due to immediate local pressures to make provision for likely local needs, rather than ensuring that collectively there is provision for very unlikely large-scale incidents. This could, over time, reduce national resilience to such disruptive incidents”.
Many, particularly in the FBU, would concur with the Government’s view at the time, especially in a financial climate of budgetary pressures on fire and rescue authorities to focus on local needs rather than the strategic investment needed to confront major incidents.
It is also interesting that in 2007 the Secretary of State proposed a statutory duty for flooding as a core duty in section 9 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, but it was not eventually included in the order when it was published in March. The response of the Secretary of State today suggested that the Government have failed to include it in this Bill for three reasons. First, there are existing powers on which the Government can rely to place a duty on fire and rescue authorities. There is a slight difference between awarding a power and placing a duty on an authority, but from the point of view of the practitioners—the front-line workers and fire fighters who were called out time and again in 2007 and again this year—the existing powers are not satisfactory and do not place an adequate duty on fire and rescue authorities. As a result, they worry that once attention is turned away from the issue of flooding, local pressures will prevent the long-term consistent investment required by fire and rescue authorities.
Allied to that is a secondary issue, which affects both the FBU and such fire and rescue authorities as Greater Manchester that are ringed by reservoirs, and that is the lack of transparency and engagement with them over reservoir safety regimes. They are not sure that this Bill will make them technical partners in ensuring reservoir safety, instead of some sort of grace and favour arrangement.
That is another argument for statutory clarity, with statutory duties placed on authorities on flood rescue in particular, but in other areas as well, so that we know who has responsibility for what and who has the duty to provide. Budgetary pressures at a local level, especially in this financial climate, will be critical. We have had talk of the Thames barrier and the GLC’s role in completing it. I was the chair of finance and deputy leader on the GLC when that happened. It was a cross-party project, but we had to beg the Government for funding consistently. In a different financial climate, it would have been difficult to achieve a consistency of investment that would have enabled us to complete that project. Eighteen months after the completion of the Thames barrier, Mrs. Thatcher abolished the GLC, but that is another story.
The second argument against the inclusion of a statutory duty was that Sir Ken Knight, the national adviser on such issues, was not convinced of the need for it. Much as I respect Sir Ken Knight, I do not confer on him papal powers of infallibility. Many other experts on fire and rescue authorities do support a statutory duty, especially those who experienced flooding in 2007 and 2009.
The final argument was that at least the legislation will introduce national standards that will be monitored by the Government. I welcome that. In fact, since 2003, the FBU has discussed with the Government their concerns about the retreat of fire and rescue services from national standards. So this is a welcome approach, but the national standards in the Bill will be best monitored if there is a duty on the fire and rescue authority with regard to flood rescue. In that way, everyone would be clear about the role that they have to play and the nature of the required investment to ensure that the authorities fulfilled their duties.
I urge the Government to reflect on the views put forward by the FBU and I would welcome further ministerial meetings with the FBU parliamentary group during the passage of the Bill to discuss potential amendments on Report to introduce the Pitt recommendation of a statutory duty for flood rescue to be placed on fire and rescue authorities.
I come from, and represent, a very wet place. Flooding is something that we in the levels of Somerset have to deal with regularly, and certainly on an annual basis. Indeed, many of the village names in the area—Isle Abbots, Isle Brewers and Muchelney, which means “big island”—reflect the history of the place and the fact that those were island communities surrounded by wetland. We know what flooding is about. I am increasingly worried about the fact that these once-in-25-years, once-in-50-years and once-in-100-years events are now happening regularly. That leads me to suppose that the assessments based on historical data need to be revisited.
I welcome the Bill not least because, as the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, the definition of flood risk—and therefore that which informs strategy—will, I hope, allow us to provide a comprehensive response to flooding difficulties. I suggest that those difficulties fall into three principal areas—prevention, mitigation and resilience, and response—and I want to deal rapidly with all three.
Many people will consider prevention to be a matter of flood defences, which can go so far but are not the answer to all our flooding problems, whether in terms of engineering or costs. They might play a part in the response in some areas, but we cannot approach the problem simply by building higher and higher walls and bigger and bigger flood defences.
The maintenance of ditches—or rhynes, as we call them in Somerset—to allow surface water to flow away and to increase the capacity of watercourses is also important, but again those who consider the maintenance of waterways and drainage to be the answer are deluding themselves. The requirement goes far beyond the capacity even if the maintenance is perfect, which it certainly is not. I have my criticisms of highways authorities not paying attention to, for instance, road drains and the effect of constant surface dressing, which often reduces ditch and drainage system capacity, but nevertheless I think we need to look at the matter anew.
We certainly need to consider the control of flow. We desperately need the co-ordination of agencies such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, but we also need to incorporate the highways authorities, developers and the Highways Agency, which is responsible for major trunk roads, such as the A303, which is a major flood concern in my constituency. In some places, its construction allows too much water to pass underneath, and in other cases, it holds it up and produces some of the problems, as was the case in the villages around Wincanton and Anchor Hill at Holton.
Bridges have the same capacity issues, and we have talked already about the vulnerability of bridges. That should not come as a surprise. I remember that, when I was a lad, the bridge at Pensford, which is probably in the Minister’s constituency, washed away. It was a major issue at the time. Bridges are a vulnerability; but often they are pinch-points for water too, because the arches under them do not provide sufficient capacity. We need therefore to look at the management of water flow and bridge capacity. I would also like a much greater emphasis placed on the whole river catchment area approach, which we started experimenting with on the River Parret, in Somerset, way back in the early 1990s when I was a county councillor. That is the only way of managing water flow effectively through a whole river catchment area.
Planning in connection with mitigation and resilience has been mentioned already. I made the point that we do not plan properly, but I was not just talking about building houses in the wrong places. We have a wonderful supermarket on the flood plain in Frome that was put there by a Government inspector against the advice of local people and authorities. It has impervious surfaces, of course, and a flood alleviation scheme attached to it. We hope that it will be successful, but nevertheless it is a risk.
I simply do not understand, however, why we do not build houses more resilient to flooding. It does not take a genius to realise that if the garage or wet rooms, such as the utility room or kitchen, are put downstairs and rooms that might be damaged by water are put upstairs, the house will be more resilient to flooding. Foundations, too could be lifted by just 2 or 3 feet. I know of a house in Queen Camel that is subjected to regular flooding, but which does not flood, despite the fact that the neighbouring houses do, because its foundations are 3 feet higher than those of the surrounding houses. It is a very simple recipe.
We need to consider community defences more and to encourage communities to take their own action where they can. The community of Stoney Stratton, in my constituency, knows what the problem is, where the water flow is and how to deal with it; what it does not have is the advice to help it to do it and the necessary resources which, as a community, it is prepared to provide via the parish council. I hope that we can encourage more local activity of that kind to provide that resilience.
We also need much more local and voluntary effort, which will require advice and co-ordination. There are some wonderful initiatives in my constituency—for instance, in West Camel, which is regularly flooded, but where people are now fitting water gates at the doors of their properties. They are fitting pumps that are responsive to flooding and provide that initial help at the point at which goods are salvageable. They are also using waterproof paint for surfaces up to the flood level in houses. That is the sort of initiative that ought to be taken in flood-vulnerable areas. There is good practice out there and good advice at the household and community levels. When people take such measures, that ought to be reflected in the insurance premium, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said.
I want to deal now with the response. The emergency services must have the training to enable them to cope as best they can. We should remember that in rural areas it is often retained fire officers we are expecting to do such work. Warnings are important. More localised forecasting would be extremely helpful, as would having audible warning systems, not just the phone line, which has been successful and which I welcome. For a flood event in the middle of the night, it would be great if people knew that there would be a siren or even that a police car or a fire engine driving through the village with its siren going meant that they had to be on the alert for difficulties. Local readiness, encouraging volunteering, identifying vulnerable people in a parish council area and developing cascade systems are also important, as is developing community resources, even if that just means having a single dinghy available, so that people know where it is, who has to be collected and what the response has to be. Those are all things that need to be encouraged in the strategies.
Lastly, I want to deal with those resources that one might term community resources, including local authority buildings such as schools. I have already mentioned the Countess Gytha school in Queen Camel, which has repeatedly flooded and which I visited again yesterday morning. We need to have a new school. The school must be re-sited. We have the site; what we do not have in the local authority is the cash to make that happen. If we are taking flooding seriously, local authorities must have the resources to take sensible actions and find better sites for key buildings such as schools, hospitals and elderly people’s homes, rather than simply continually decanting children out and refurbishing buildings.
However, that needs co-ordination between the Secretary of State’s Department and other Departments, so that those resources are made available. I will be seeking a meeting with the Minister for Schools and Learners in the near future about that school, but I wish I knew that I had the support of DEFRA in saying that this issue—ensuring that community facilities that are regularly at risk of flooding will be supported by the Government’s funding mechanisms to be moved to more appropriate places—is an urgent matter.
The Bill is a start in the right direction. I can see it has enormous potential in developing the strategies, but there is a huge array of issues that it needs to encompass if it is to do so successfully.
Before I begin, let me thank the Secretary of State for all the work that he has done in Cumbria over recent weeks. It really has been appreciated. We welcome the solidarity that he has shown, the efforts that he has undertaken on our behalf and the decisive action that he has demonstrated from day one. It is absolutely right to bring the Bill forward now. It could not have waited any longer, and in that regard its length is self-explanatory.
May I also associate myself with many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? Anecdotally at least, the experience of the Fire Brigades Union in Cumbria right now certainly echoes the comments that he made about fire and rescue efforts in previous disasters.
As a west Cumbrian Member of Parliament, I cannot say for certain that any Bill or Act could have prevented the recent flooding in west Cumbria. It is almost impossible for any Act of Parliament to cater for a one-in-1,000-year event. Let us bear in mind that Parliament is not yet 1,000-years-old. However, living in and among the areas affected by the floods, I would say that my guess from the ground is that the Bill could have helped.
We are all settled, I hope, on the principles of the Stern report. It will take hundreds of millions of pounds to put right the damage in west Cumbria. However, the cost of the cure, not to mention the economic consequences of the flood damage and the effect upon people’s lives and communities, will surely dwarf the cost of prevention.
In the four and a half years that I have been in this place, I have routinely worked alongside communities in my constituency that have suffered from flooding. If the Bill had been enacted sooner, it would certainly have made a huge difference to those more ordinary events in places such as Parton, Beckermet, Braystones, Egremont, Holmrook, Cleator or Keswick. The organisational and accountability changes envisaged in the Bill would have made a difference—in some circumstances, a life-changing difference—to the lives of the people in those communities. As I have said recently in this House, I have seen the effects of flooding on those communities for myself.
As the people of Parton taught me four years ago, it takes only a little water to cause a flood and so make a huge impact upon the life of a family. A foot of water can ruin a home, and everything in it. Floods take away so much that can never be replaced. This issue is one of the most difficult to face us as a nation. Flooding is likely to happen more, not less, and we need to be able to meet the challenges that it poses in practical and policy terms. Improvements to the present system can be effected through legislation, but, inescapably, increased public spending on flood defences and water management will have to be at the heart of our effort. This might not be a universally popular clarion call right now—although it is in some quarters, at least—but it is a fact that must be faced up to.
I hope to be able to serve on the Bill Committee that will scrutinise this legislation following today’s Second Reading. In the hope of being able to serve on that Committee, I will be asking as many flood action groups as possible in the affected areas to help me to undertake some pre-Committee scrutiny of the Bill, with a view to making their detailed views known. One of the strengths of the Bill is that it places valuable information germane to flooding and coastal erosion in the public domain, thereby massively increasing accountability and, therefore, action. The bitter experience of many of my constituents is that there is all too often no accountability with regard to flooding issues. There is consequently no ownership, no action and no improvement. I cannot stress strongly enough the anger and disenchantment that this causes.
In one local village, which can act as a microcosm for the many communities—particularly semi-rural coastal communities—facing flooding throughout Cumbria and the rest of the country, there are long-standing flooding problems caused by a variety of factors. The first is geography. The village in question is by the sea at the bottom of a large steep hill in the western Lake district, and the hill contains natural watercourses, streams and culverts. The second is infrastructure. The village is a little over a mile from a water treatment plant which discharges into the sea. In addition, it is an historic mining village surrounded by deep mineworkings. It also contains some railway bridges.
The third factor is development. Fine period Georgian housing sits alongside traditional terraced housing and some modern housing. Sometimes, the enforcement of planning decisions is incredibly difficult due to the problems in determining the ownership of land, culverts, drains and waterways, and there is a profound lack of accountability. The village is served by three tiers of local government, which presents its own unique difficulties. Furthermore, rainfall is increasing and the sea levels are rising.
That village could be one of many throughout Cumbria, the north or Scotland, but its problems are there now and they are very real. As the county that contains the Lake district and is next to the Irish sea, Cumbria requires unique help. I was speaking to one of the village residents on Friday night, and she told me that she and her husband take it in turns to keep watch whenever it rains through the night, such is their fear of flooding.
I remind all hon. Members that flooding is not uncommon in this country, and that we are living in the world’s fourth largest economy at the start of the 21st century. Speed is of the essence. Those people are incensed by the lack of accountability, but they are not beaten by it. The village now has its own flood defence plan. If necessary, they will alert each other at 3, 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning, and strategically place their sandbags, create their own waterways and fit their own flood defences to protect their property and their village. It is a remarkable village, with great people, and I commend their civic-mindedness, which is genuinely inspirational. But I want the Bill to change their lives quickly and for the better. Can the Secretary of State assure me that this will be the case?
As I mentioned, that community is a microcosm of the whole of Cumbria. We in the west of the county live by the sea and are surrounded by the fells. My constituency is home to England’s deepest lake and tallest mountain. I would also suggest that it is the most beautiful in the country, and I urge hon. Members to visit it. But in a county such as ours—with a population of fewer than 500,000—how can local authority revenues ever support the infrastructure developments and improvements that need to be made? Even if set at punitive levels, the tax take would never be sufficient to undertake the necessary works. It is therefore clear that, in areas such as Cumbria, organisations such as Cumbria county council and Copeland borough council need to be the recipients of dedicated additional public money, over and above what we can raise ourselves, particularly if they are designated as a lead local flood authority, as envisaged in the Bill. Can the Secretary of State provide some indication of the Government’s thinking on that?
On the subject of accountability, many people, myself included, are inclined to believe that the flooding problems we face, which are compounded by environmental change and increasing rainfall, have been exacerbated since the privatisation of the water boards in this country. I make no ideological point at all, as there are benefits to both private and public ownership models and each one works to different ends in different ways. However, since privatisation, our water drainage and management networks appear to have sharply deteriorated. Do we know what the situation is? Is there any benchmark against which to measure this? Can the Secretary of State tell us in the House today, or in Committee or on Third Reading precisely what the situation is?
It may well be that significant revenue could be raised here to help with this problem. If—and it is a big if—there has been a proven and demonstrable decline in the network since privatisation, a windfall tax, ring-fenced for flood prevention measures, may well be called for. Will the Secretary of State explain precisely and in more detail what this Bill will mean for water companies in the country?
As I went around the flooded areas in the wake of the recent floods in west Cumbria, there was real concern about the role of water companies, their infrastructure investments and the nature of their accountability. I hope that we can hear some answers from the Secretary of State, so that my constituents and I will know whether it is right to push for fundamental change with regard to the responsibilities of water companies. In the same way, will the Government give further detail not simply on the Bill’s ability to legislate to improve our ability to cope with the risk of flooding, but also on the heightened risks of other dangers caused by flooding?
I shall now bring my remarks to a close because other Members want to speak. In short, prevention is better than cure, and we need to act exceptionally quickly.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed), who is absolutely right to highlight the importance of accountability, the dislocation that exists between accountability and responsibility, and the frustration that many people feel that there are insufficient structures that cover those particular issues. I contribute tonight because my constituency lies entirely on a flood plain, the vast majority of which is below sea level. Most of it has been reclaimed from the sea over the years, primarily by the Dutch, but it began as long ago as Roman times.
I think the Government were absolutely correct to respond to the 2007 floods, to instigate the Pitt report and initially to accept all its findings, but I am sure that the Government would accept that the Bill is not as comprehensive as was originally envisaged. Whoever form the next Government after the next general election—I obviously hope that it will be the Conservatives—will have to return to this issue to develop and build on some of the themes missing from the Bill.
Maps were provided by the Environment Agency to all Members of Parliament. Mine shows that if the flood defences failed, my whole constituency would be under water as a result of the combination of failing coastal flood defences and those dealing with precipitation and fluvial flooding. There have been problems in east Lincolnshire, most notably back in 1953, when significant floods along the whole of the eastern English coast took place. Homes and businesses were destroyed, people lost their lives and significant tracts of agricultural land were salinated.
The fact that there has not been a serious flood in Lincolnshire since 1953 is, I think, a reflection of the investment that has gone into coastal defences and the excellent workings of the internal drainage boards in the county. Clearly, with climate change, the risk of flooding will be exacerbated, so we need to ensure that we are ready for any particular climate change that may impact not just in Lincolnshire but elsewhere in the country.
It is important to give the House a feel for the scale of the drainage schemes in Lincolnshire. There are 11 internal drainage boards, which manage water levels over 1.3 million square miles, and 171 operating pumping stations, maintaining 3,450 miles of managed drainage channels protecting more than 500,000 properties. Although I do not criticise hon. Members for their earlier comments about the necessity to be wary of development and building in flood plains, if a complete area is a flood plain, a much more sophisticated approach than a blanket ban is required. In my part of Lincolnshire, we cannot just allow economic and residential development to atrophy, as there would be no job creation and no wealth creation over the next 20 or 30 years. That said, we must ensure that the detail is worked through thoroughly and properly in respect of the Environment Agency and the new structures put in place by the Bill. For example, there are 26,000 caravans between Mablethorpe and Skegness.
Moreover, different types of coastline and the different types of flooding that may affect them give rise to different needs. My constituency contains open coast that stretches from Gibraltar Point up to the Humber. That area is very different from the area of the Wash, which surrounds the coastal area of Lincolnshire but also that of Norfolk. The Environment Agency is doing very good work, particularly on offshore dredging, beach nourishment and dune maintenance. Its funding levels need to be maintained to ensure that that work continues.
I agree with everything that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in his excellent speech. However, I feel that we should take a more nuanced view of the information provided by the Environment Agency. It is important for the agency not to frighten people, especially when—in my view—insufficient research has been undertaken and disproportionate weight has been given to the likelihood of flooding. I have seen maps produced by the agency according to which the whole of my constituency and everyone in it would be flooded in certain circumstances. I sincerely hope that that will not happen, but the current level of uncertainty cannot continue in Lincolnshire.
That is not to say that we should not consider—as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—a range of options, including managed retreats. However, we should not simply accept that all agricultural land will be flooded in preference to other risk management options. The protection of people and property and of valuable and productive agricultural land is essential. I should point out that 89 per cent. of farmland in the fens is grade 1 or grade 2. It provides 37 per cent. of vegetable production, 25 per cent. of potato production, and 17 per cent. of sugar beet production, and employs 27,000 people. It is not waste land. It is not land that the country can do without. It also saves billions of pounds of imports and incalculable food miles, ensures food security and reduces carbon emissions. The loss of such land would have extremely detrimental consequences.
In the limited time available to me, I want to highlight the issues that I think should be examined in more detail in Committee. There clearly needs to be a review of any plans that are established, but the dates involved must be very specific, as must the synchronisation of national and local revisions, in order to remove any uncertainty. The review of the shoreline management plans and the coastal strategy is causing enormous problems in relation to economic diversification and job creation in Lincolnshire.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us how the proposals in the Bill relate to European Union directives, particularly the water framework directive, and what is meant by local plans being consistent with national plans. I hope that that does not mean an imposition from the centre that conflicts with local desires and priorities.
As other Members have said, internal drainage boards fulfil an integral and focused role in providing drainage to protect not just agricultural land but people and property. I was delighted to note that the Government had listened to, and acted on, the suggestions in the pre-scrutiny report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and had withdrawn their proposals for the redefinition of responsibilities, governance and funding arrangements for the boards. However, there is continuing concern about any future plans to move to proportional membership. Relating membership to funding streams would give much more power to the county council and other local authorities and less to those who farm and produce the food. Local farmers and their representatives must continue to play a key role.
The drainage levy also needs to be examined. It used to be reimbursed 100 per cent. by central Government, but that is no longer the case. There is concern about, in particular, the possibility that boards will not be able to manage and maintain their assets and their plans for capital programmes, especially when it comes to replacing or upgrading vital pumping stations. If there is insufficient funding or—I do not think that this will happen in Lincolnshire, but it may happen elsewhere—local authorities find ways of moving funds back to other central funding mechanisms, particularly given the present macro-economic climate and the fiscal deficit, we could experience severely detrimental effects such as reduced spending on drainage, reduced maintenance of waterways, little effort to keep local rates down, and a loss of local knowledge, expertise and input.
I must inform the Secretary of State that he did not respond adequately to my intervention on the reimbursement of local authority funding. He did make the point that the cost of sustainable drainage systems will be reimbursed by central Government, but he did not go further than that, so perhaps in his winding-up speech he will put on record whether the costs of all the additional responsibilities being put on local authorities will be met by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or whether local authorities will have to meet the costs themselves or reduce services elsewhere.
As highlighted by the Conservative party spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), there is real concern about clauses 38 and 39 and the apparent ability of the Environment Agency to override local concerns and compulsorily to purchase land that may be valuable agricultural land without there being any appeal mechanism in place. I very much hope that this will be looked at in Committee.
It is essential that the Government take into account Members’ concerns, ensure that proposals are fully funded so that there is no additional burden on the council tax payer, and insist that local solutions form an integral part of all flood-risk management strategies.
I welcome the Bill as a constituency MP, for reasons that I shall touch on later. However, I am also chair of the all-party group on water, and we have produced our own report—it came out slightly before “Future Water”. Other Members have referred to Pitt, Cave, the price review 2009 and the Walker report. I am pleased that this Bill has been brought forward before the Christmas recess, as that gives it a strong chance of reaching the statute book, and it must do so.
This Second Reading debate is taking place in a week in which there are important discussions about the change in our climate, which we see, and different and volatile patterns in water management, flooding and drought. That the Bill is to be given a Second Reading now is also a just tribute to the recent events in Cumbria.
The Bill covers flood issues, and other Members have referred to the fact that it will enable the Environment Agency to create national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies. Under clause 9, lead local flood authorities will be able to create flood risk management strategies. For reasons to which I referred in the Queen’s Speech debate, that will be very welcome in my constituency, as it will be in all the other constituencies already mentioned in the debate. The Bill gives the EA and local authorities powers to carry out flood risk management works more easily.
In respect of drought, the Bill will enable water companies to control non-essential usage of water more easily. In particular, it contains provisions on the use of hosepipes for activities such as washing cars and gardening, which are particularly relevant in the summer months when water is scarce.
The Bill also tackles surface drainage issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) waxed lyrical about that, as other Members have done on other water matters. The Bill will enable water companies to offer relief to community groups on surface water drainage charges, which has been much campaigned for. I welcome that for my constituency, as much as other Members have done for theirs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) waxed lyrical about private sewers and sewerage—if one can wax lyrical about that topic. The mandatory build standards outlined in the Bill are greatly to be welcomed, but I heard what my hon. Friend said, and I hope that Ministers will have heard his pleas.
Other Members have mentioned a variety of other topics, and future contributors will no doubt mention still more. No doubt, a further Bill will be forthcoming in future years to deal with the need for the sort of consolidating legislation that others have advocated. That is not an excuse for failing to introduce this measure. It is narrower in scope, but it is significant, particularly at this point in the legislative cycle. If this Bill had not been introduced, my Front-Bench colleagues would have been harangued by people from all parts of the House for not doing so, especially in the context of events in Cumbria. It is good that we are getting on with these measures.
I would like the Bill to cover one issue arising from the Walker report. Hon. Members who know well the campaign of 20 years’ length that I and other Members have fought would probably expect me at this point to mention the south-west’s unique affordability charges. I shall mention those in passing, although the Secretary of State will be pleased to hear that that is not the issue that I expect to see in the Bill. I simply acknowledge that Walker stated:
“Having looked at the particular economic, social and geographical circumstances of the South West Water area, the review team concluded that:
Current high bills in the South West Water area relate to the poor state of the sewerage assets at privatisation”.
This is to the tune of £650 million. The report continued:
“Dealing with the historic issues would address the root cause of the issue directly and could be addressed through a specific one-off adjustment or through annual transfers funded by government or, with a different set of fairness challenges, other water customers”
across the country. These are big issues that someone needs to examine. Anna Walker rightly said:
“Ofwat would be best placed to consider the options for implementing a one-off or other adjustment, and advising ministers accordingly”.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for having referred this speedily to the regulator, so that it can get on with examining the matter.
However, the issue that I wish to discuss in the minutes available to me has been raised by a number of other Members—I am talking about water debt. Unpaid water bills last year resulted in water debt of more than £1.25 billion, which was an increase of more than 13 per cent. on the previous year. About 44 per cent. of household water debt is held by customers in rented accommodation and a high proportion is a result of what the industry terms as “leavers”—people who have gone. There is no requirement on tenants or landlords to provide information on the user of the water—the person responsible for the water charges.
The final report of the Walker review recommends:
“As a priority, the Water Industry Act 1991 should be amended to provide for a named customer and clarify who is responsible for paying the water bill; the ‘liable person’ should be the property owner unless they discharge their liability to the water company by providing tenancy information correctly and in a timely manner”.
That recommendation could help to deal with the significant problem of debt from household customers, which costs the rest of us, including many low-income customers in my constituency and across the United Kingdom, £12 on every bill.
Debt in the energy sector is about one fifth of that in the water sector, despite the considerably higher bills. In comparison, the levels of debt in the electricity and gas sectors have remained broadly static, according to Ofgem. The number of energy customers repaying a debt at the end of 2008 was 1.3 million in respect of electricity and 0.8 million in respect of gas. In the water sector, more than 5 million customers are in debt, which suggests that as well as there being some people who struggle to pay those bills, particularly in my water area, many simply will not pay.
There is something that can be done about it: we can give better powers to the companies to follow up those debts. A key problem is knowing who to bill, especially with short-term private rental properties. Landlords could be required to provide information on their tenants and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen to the number of views that have been expressed on both sides of the House. The Government as well as water users who are paying for this debt could benefit from the measure, simply because there will have to be an interim review to take account of the expected investment of taking on private sewers—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has returned to his seat. The cost will be considerable and has not been factored into PR09, and there is therefore a win-win situation for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he ensures that by the time we get around to such an interim review, the matter of debt is on its way to being resolved by what should be a fairly straightforward amendment to the Bill.
I am sorry that I missed the first two speeches of the debate, including that of the Secretary of State, but I was in the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice. I want to make a few brief comments arising out of the catastrophic floods in many parts of my constituency in 2008. Of course, we had a rather worrying reminder of them in 2009, which was fortunately not so bad.
The catastrophe was worst in Rothbury. Most people were aware of the situation in Morpeth, of course, because it featured so much on the national television, but in Rothbury large numbers of people were out of their homes for many months as a result of the floods. Other communities, such as Powburn, Warkworth, Kirknewton and Felton, were affected. Many farms and farm businesses were flooded, with nearly 1,000 animal carcases requiring removal. Many roads were blocked and communities in the Ingram valley were virtually cut off.
I want to emphasise the significance of the key element of the Bill, which I see as the role of the Environment Agency in taking the lead in dealing with the management of floods and with the flood threat. At times, that would not have been easy to say, because the Environment Agency has not always been popular in my constituency, particularly when people have seen it as the body that stopped them doing the simple practical things that they felt would reduce the flood risk to their properties, such as moving gravel banks or putting in barriers. However, as a consequence of what happened in the floods in our region, the agency has changed its approach in a helpful way and has combined its efforts with those of other agencies to move things forward.
Nothing is achieved in this area unless a wide range of bodies work together. Natural England is crucial, because the body that was refusing consent for practical works was often not really the Environment Agency; it was relaying the views of Natural England. Initially, Natural England seemed distant from the whole process, but as we got it into joint meetings and meetings with local communities, it began to realise the importance of listening to local people, who could often tell its representatives a great deal that they did not know about the sites of special scientific interest and flood phenomena in the area.
The local authority, Northumberland county council, has a key role both as the highways authority and through its flood responsibilities. So do the national park authority and local people. It is only when we get all those people together, as we have done in village halls and school halls in places such as Ingram and Rothbury, that we can make some progress. People start to have confidence in each other and in the contribution that they can make.
It is important that there should be an appeal mechanism against some of the very controversial decisions that will have to be taken on flood alleviation measures. If a farmer could lose large areas of land, for example, when floods take place—because of deliberate flooding of an agricultural area—there has to be some appeal mechanism to ensure that that is a sensible decision and that the terms offered to the farmer are reasonable.
Generally speaking, it is important that we have a strong lead body that is prepared to take action, because we need large-scale flood alleviation schemes, as are planned for the River Wansbeck, although they are not yet approved for funding. We will also need such schemes on the River Coquet, if Rothbury is to be protected. Alongside those bigger schemes, however, we will need many small, practical, local measures in places such as Rothbury, the Ingram valley and the Glendale area that will significantly reduce the flood risk faced by particular groups of houses. Those small measures require much more modest financing than the major flood alleviation schemes and the big defence works, which can be funded in only a limited number of places where a significant amount of property is affected. It is crucial that organisations work together to bring forward such schemes, and there are genuine signs that all the key authorities in Northumberland are showing that willingness. There is still momentum behind the efforts to recover from the last round of flooding and to prevent a similar impact in the future, and I am determined that that momentum and co-operation should be maintained.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who made a measured and passionate contribution that was based on the experiences of his constituency.
It is a pleasure, as secretary of the all-party group on flood prevention, to make a modest contribution to the debate. We might have heard the last words on this subject from my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)—the same applies to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—but each speech was certainly a tour de force that contributed to our proceedings.
In my 13 years in Parliament, my name has, to my knowledge, been mentioned only once in Cabinet. My sources tell me that a slide presentation was made to the Cabinet earlier this year on flood defences and the work of the Environment Agency. Perhaps minds were beginning to wander by slide 27, but then they reached the final slide, and who should appear—modesty does not forbid me from saying—but the hon. Member for Selby, sitting on top of the flood defences in Selby on the occasion of their opening. Those flood defences are worth £18 million and protect 3,000 people. I am told by my informant that one or two members of the Cabinet made comments on that last slide; I do not know what they said, but perhaps it was how well deserved the money was, given my constant record of support for Ministers over the past decade.
In return for such confidence from Ministers, I put on record that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors have ensured that there has been a continual increase in flood expenditure over the years, which has not always been easy. While I take on board all the criticisms that have been made about the current insurance arrangements, some European countries do not have any insurance arrangements at all, so the maintenance of our arrangements represents an achievement, although I wish that the insurance industry was much better at enforcing the terms of the codes. It was also crucial that the Bill came before the House before Christmas so that it could make progress, and Ministers are to be commended on those three issues.
I want to make three points about the Bill, all of which have been referred to, although perhaps not in detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood talked about the regional flood defence committees. It is important that those committees continue, so I am a little alarmed by clauses 22 to 26, which deal with such committees. The functions of the committees will be changed and they will become more advisory and less executive. Ministers will also take greater powers to appoint the committees’ members. At the moment, about half the membership of a committee is made up of local authority members chosen by individual local authorities. If we are to give local authorities much more responsibility for local management and co-ordination, the least that we can do is maintain their influence.
There is no evidence to suggest that that influence has been malign at a regional level. One marvellous phrase in the Government response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is:
“the Department wishes to strengthen these committees by ensuring their members are of the right calibre and standing and able to provide effective local input.”
I read that as meaning that the man from Whitehall knows best who should represent local authorities on the regional flood defences committees. Alternatively, perhaps it is a way of ensuring that the local authorities are unable to have a good block vote.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came up to Yorkshire some years ago, and since then he has become an honorary Yorkshireman and a champion of local democracy. When he looks at this matter, I am sure that he will realise that it will be much better if Yorkshire’s regional flood defence committee makes the final sign-off on flood defence schemes and so on, and not some anonymous bureaucrat in Whitehall.
My second point is again inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. I may go a little further than he did, although I am not about to suggest any windfall taxes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) proposed. That must be a first for him, but I shall be measured in my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood suggested that water companies, however they are regulated or owned in the future, could have a greater role to play with regard to SUDS. I think that he is on to something there, because the water companies’ greater role in terms of private sewers and so on means that they have the engineering experience needed for SUDS. It would take many local authorities a long time to build up that expertise, so there is a logic in the suggestion that water companies and water authorities should have a greater say about SUDS. A strong case can be made for that.
My third and final point has to do with the basic thrust of the Bill. Those of us who have been affected by flooding know what it is like. There are 88 settlements in Selby, and well over half of them have been flooded at some time during my years as the local MP. I am sure that all of us representing areas that flood have seen people suffering terribly when their houses get flooded. We will have looked at all the various agencies—the Environment Agency, the local authorities, the drainage boards and the water authorities—and wondered which of them was in charge.
I play a small and modest part in the co-ordinating role in my area. Every six months, I chair a meeting at which representatives from the villages affected by flooding have half an hour to talk about the problem as they see it. We sit there all day and between us we try and co-ordinate action and so on.
It is quite a tough job, and I shall give the House one example, involving the village of Saxton in the heart of Yorkshire. A few years ago, the village was repeatedly flooded by surface water flooding. The people there made good use of the discretionary funding from the regional flood defence committee and they put together, from various sources, a pot of money amounting to nearly £100,000. However, they then discovered that improving the drainage in the village meant that they had first to get round the pipes and other equipment blocking the drains that had been put in place by the various local utilities.
We are now making an appeal to the various utilities to remove their services by the time that England play their first game in the World cup against the United States on 12 June next year. All but one have agreed to do that, so, if the funding bodies keep the funding in place, we will be able to put the scheme in place. We are also appealing to the National Grid Company, which has not yet fulfilled a deal that it made with a local farmer to fix the drainage in one of his fields. That shows that an awful lot of co-ordination is involved just for one village. For that reason, the task that local authorities are to take on, and the expertise that they will need, should not be underestimated.
I compare the task facing local authorities with the one that faced them when, in the early days of this Government, the co-ordination of crime prevention became a local authority function for the first time. Local authorities had to do lots of things that they had not done before, and they also had to talk to lots of people whom they had never talked to before. That is the scale of the challenge that we are facing with this Bill.
The all-party flood prevention group was formed after the experience of the floods of 2000. I was a relatively new MP at the time, and I will never forget watching hundreds of troops pass sandbags along a line one Saturday night in a desperate attempt to keep Selby’s flood defences from failing. That brought it home to me how big an issue this is for many communities, and I am very pleased that the Bill is before the House tonight. May it have a fair wind in the new year.
I am delighted to make a short contribution, following my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). The Bill is important. As a member of the Select Committee, I could make an argument for delay so that we got the totality of the Bill, but it is important that we prioritise the flooding aspects of the earlier Floods and Water Bill and deal with some aspects of water management.
I approach the Bill from three standpoints. First, the Select Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny was a detailed exercise. I have tried to read the papers. We have done our homework and carried out our scrutiny role properly. Secondly, as my two constituency neighbours explained in graphic detail, Gloucestershire will be renowned for the 2007 floods. All of us who were involved in those dreadful days will always remember what that meant for some people and their representatives. As we know, some of the problems continue. I was dealing with floods only a few weeks ago. Thankfully, they were not major but they were still significant. The problem is not ever-present, but it has not gone away.
As a result, my third point of influence is through the work of the people who formed action groups. I shall mention four, although there are more in my constituency—the Painswick Stream group, the Slad Brook group, the Bridgend group in Stonehouse, where I live, and the Shorn Brook group in Hardwicke. Each of those groups has lobbied me and kept me directly in touch with all developments. I have learned that the problem is ongoing. More than anything, we must be honest with people. I shall say more about that shortly.
To me, there are four aspects that we should try to bring together. There are issues of leadership, particularly leadership from the centre, but also at a local level, funding, responsibility and deliverability. The two Pitt reports did an immense service by highlighting a series of recommendations. Pleasingly, the Government are turning the clock forward and bringing into statute the very things that Michael Pitt asked us to do, although most of the recommendations did not require legislation.
At the centre of these efforts we have the double-headed hydra—the Environment Agency and the lead local authority. The decision-making mechanism can be criticised for its vertical structure, but as other hon. Members have said, unless there is clarity, there will always be confusion about who does what.
I welcome the way in which the Government have set about trying to deal with the charging of voluntary and community groups. Some of us felt that that campaign might not be successful, but the Government have listened. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) said, we must make the campaign stronger, I am proud that I can go back to my Stroud groups and say that we have listened and we will do the right thing.
I shall expand on three points that have been mentioned. First, I spend my life trying to persuade people that, far from being a problem, internal drainage boards are a valuable addition to the way in which we organise things at a local level. I think I understand what the Government want us to do through the legislation—to widen the IDBs’ realm of activity and to deepen their ability to co-ordinate their activities so that an IDB does not need to be too locally based. We miss a trick if we do not recognise the value of those people on the IDBs, given the way in which they can apply their skills, knowledge and, certainly, local understanding to any flooding situation. I do not mind levying the cost at all. I will go to any of my parish councils and tell them that we should levy a charge so that those IDBs can function, because the preparatory and preventive work that they are so able to carry out is very important.
We have ducked riparian ownership, because it is an immense issue. We have not mentioned it, because, despite including it in the draft Bill, we cavilled even there at the possible repercussions of taking away responsibility from owners. We cannot duck the issue completely, however, and I shall concentrate on one simple aspect that has caused me enormous problems—when the riparian owner has not only failed to do the work, but has been obstructive and unhelpful, and other people have been flooded as a result. The riparian owner may have barricaded their land, built it up so that other people subsequently flood or, in one case of which I know, just refused to operate the sluice gates. When one sees a neighbour being flooded after they have desperately tried to get on to somebody else’s property, which has barbed wire around it and barred gates, that is the most depressing thing. I therefore want the Bill to make it clear that we can prosecute such people and use enforcement, so that they at least get the message that that is not good neighbourliness. They should be held responsible for either their inactivity or their improper actions.
We have also skated over the issue of critical infrastructure. People have mentioned the railways, and they are crucial to the issue, because they are a huge conduit for water. If we do not include the railway system and Network Rail, in particular, alongside the water boards, the Environment Agency and all the other public bodies, we will fail to realise how important they are. It has not always been easy to get such bodies to take responsibility. The situation has improved in my area, but some households flooded when the railway organisations failed to take responsibility for their cuttings, so I shall look very carefully at how we can co-ordinate activities and make the strategies more coherent.
I shall leave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to puzzle over my final point. It is about our raising expectations by putting in place a strategic plan, which in this case is the local surface water management plan. I am very pleased that the Government have encouraged the 70-odd areas that are working through the issue to come up with such plans, but once they are in place it behoves us to find the money to deal with any subsequent problems.
There is a need for honesty. If we are to put in place a plan and the money to fund the action, we should tell people. But, if that is not going to happen for any reason, we must, as I said in an intervention earlier, tell people and households that they will have to look at their own resilience and take their own measures because we cannot guarantee that, in every eventuality, they will be safe from flooding.
That may be a sour note on which to end my contribution, but the worst thing of all was when we met people who thought they had been promised protection, and it was not possible to deliver that. We need complete honesty in how we go about these matters.
I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I congratulate the Secretary of State on his staying power. The one missing element in the debate was the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies); we wish him very well in his negotiations on fisheries. I look forward to working with him constructively in the forthcoming Committee proceedings. I echo the warm reception that the Bill has received across the House, although all those who contributed took a cautious approach, and I think that there is room for improvement.
The Secretary of State set the tone by relaying the events of the summer 2007 floods. I echo his tributes, and those of all hon. Members, to the emergency services—the police, fire and ambulance services, as well as the Environment Agency, local authorities and the armed forces, and in Cumbria, most recently, the mountain and fell rescue service. In the visits that I have made, I have been struck by the importance of the visibility of those who walk the streets, particularly those from the Environment Agency; they wear a uniform with a badge. It is also important that we recognise the resilience of local communities, most recently in Workington, Cockermouth and Keswick in Cumbria, as well as parts of the Copeland constituency.
The Vale of York is distinctive in that it is about 65 per cent. flood plain; sadly, we are all too experienced in serious flooding. I should like to declare an interest in that I hope that the Secretary of State will soon allow our modest little scheme for Thirsk to go ahead through the Environment Agency. I would like to hold him to account for a comment that he made about the additional funds that were given in 2007 and, most recently, for the Cumbrian floods. Following the summer 2007 floods, our exercise proved that £50 million in out-of-pocket expenses was incurred by local authorities. I have questioned the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends about that. I hope that Cumbria and other communities that may well suffer in future will not be left with such high expenses.
I should like to draw together some of the strands of the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who spoke very eloquently, referred to the definition of risk and the continuing role of adaptation. I would like to add to the list that he and others gave. We need a review not only of bridges and other critical infrastructure, which I understand has not yet been completed, but of all main roads and trunk roads. The M1 came very close to closing as a result of the summer 2007 floods. In a visit to the constituency of the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), I was shocked to see the damage to one small road in Cockermouth, before a full audit was done.
I think that everyone welcomes the strategic overview and role that the Environment Agency will be given, but it is very prescriptive. The fact that there is no appeals mechanism in relation to some of its prescriptive roles and powers is worthy of exploration in Committee. We must also consider how the draft strategy that the agency is to publish will link in with other elements. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) talked about the need for a more integrated approach between the county and unitary authorities, and said that the district councils must not be excluded because they were the planning authorities. I am a particular fan of the internal drainage boards. I must declare that I am a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, an appointment of which I am particularly proud. Those boards have the necessary local expertise and skills, and, recently, the funds. We need to explore ways in which the internal drainage boards, the Environment Agency and the water companies can work more closely together.
The Secretary of State may think that I am playing devil’s advocate here, but while my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State set out clearly our role and that of local communities, I believe that there are certain matters on which the water companies have a further role to play. One is sustainable urban drainage systems, and I hope that the Secretary of State is minded to agree to our proposal to adopt the Scottish law definition of SUDS. I do not see any reason for having one definition north of the border and another south of the border, given that it is comprehensive. It is important that we identify where SUDS are, who currently owns them and who maintains them. That has not yet been achieved in the Bill, and we need an audit. From a cursory first reading of the Bill, I believe that the water companies have a prominent role to play in taking the lead responsibility for SUDS once we have established those facts. They have the skills and resources to do that in a way that local authorities may not.
I entirely endorse what the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said about sewers, which we cannot talk about often enough. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for his work on sewers when he was a Minister. We need a definite plan and proposal for the adoption of private drains and sewers, and again, we need an audit so that we know where they are and who owns them. It comes as a bolt from the blue when householders find out that their drains are private. They often find out only because their drains are flooded. We need a deadline for that, and I hope that the Secretary of State will oblige.
It is right that the water companies should adopt private drains and sewers and be made responsible for them, but regrettably the Secretary of State and the Department are completely wrong in their sums. I do not believe that the savings that they have estimated are accurate or that local authorities are currently paying out anything like the sums that they believe. We need to be grown-up and revisit that, and water companies need to be prepared and know exactly what they are in for.
Pitt was extremely clear about the ending of the automatic right to connect. The regulations under planning policy statement 25, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, cover building on flood plains. I believe that water companies should have the badge of statutory consultees, but also that their advice, like that of the Environment Agency, should be acted upon. There should be some comeback when a planning authority proceeds to ignore that advice, if water companies are adopted as statutory consultees under the Bill.
To recap, I believe that water companies have a key role to play in sustainable urban drainage systems, planning changes to end the automatic right to connect and the adoption of private drains and sewers. I welcome the opening up of the tendering process to bodies other than water companies in clause 36, but I do not understand the logic of excluding water companies. I hope that the Secretary of State will review that.
There have been a number of contributions about sustainable development, natural alleviation schemes of water retention and working with nature. I pay tribute to the pilot scheme that has been authorised in Pickering. I have aspirations to represent Pickering in a future Parliament, so it is particularly close to my heart. Other pilots have also been rolled out, including by the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe in his previous ministerial capacity. If the Pickering scheme is deemed to work, with mini-dams along the railway line, trees upstream and bottlenecks removed downstream, it will be a great way forward and other parts of the country will benefit.
I have great sympathy with those who have said that river catchment area management needs to be examined more closely, and there is work that we can do on that. As regards the crucial role of the fire and rescue service and statutory responsibility, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others mentioned, Pitt recommendation 39 was very clear that the Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with fire and rescue authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty. We are not quite there yet, and I hope that the Secretary of State sets out exactly where we are when he responds.
The Bill’s provisions for information sharing should be more specific. There should be much more access to the various mappings. I understand that the Secretary of State is prepared to open Ordnance Survey mappings, but what about those of the Met Office, the insurance industry, district councils and water companies? However, there should be a provision setting out confidentiality criteria—the confidentiality of anything that is commercially sensitive should be respected.
Resource, funding and skills are causing great alarm—witness the contributions made this evening. We need to look again at what the balance between local government, local authorities, the Environment Agency and water companies should be. The Secretary of State is aware that I do not believe that either the Environment Agency or the local authorities can find the necessary resources from their existing funds. That matter is causing great concern, and I hope that he addresses it this evening.
On resilience and the British Standards Institution’s issuing of the kitemark, if a product is proved to be fit for purpose, will a householder or business property owner be able to sue the BSI or the product maker when a product allows water in? What comeback is there and how can we ensure that home owners and property owners in general have the confidence to increase their resilience? What happens if a product is demonstrated to be unfit for purpose? A great consensus is building on amending building regulations to increase resilience to future floods. It is not acceptable that home owners are returning to properties that still have electrical sockets at ground level. When a property is prone to future floods, that simply stores up more problems.
The Government need to be much clearer what priorities there are between the arbitrary house building policy of one Department and DEFRA’s guidance not to build in inappropriate places. The Secretary of State needs to be much clearer on the relationship between the Environment Agency’s strategic overview and the regional spatial plans—my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and others showed what future flooding problems there could be in their constituencies.
On insurance, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said in setting out the Conservative position at the beginning of the debate that there was a discrepancy between the £1 billion that the Government would be paying next year and the £1.5 billion for which the insurance industry is still calling. The Government need to address that, the need for accessible insurance for all, which the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and others addressed, and the fact that premiums and excesses are going up. In my constituency, excesses are well in excess of £10,000. They need to be affordable; otherwise, the taxpayer is left with the cost of picking up uninsurable losses. I should like the Secretary of State to go further and to write a duty into the Bill—we have prepared a little amendment to help him in this regard—for the Environment Agency to come forward with an annual programme for maintenance, which will be reported to both Houses and debated, to ensure that it is at all times maintaining and dredging the main water courses, so that as long as internal drainage boards are doing their bit, the water does not back up.
I should like to take credit for one measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs threatened to amend the so-called rain tax, but the Government have done so in clause 42. That was included only after the official Opposition persisted in saying that we would act if the Government failed to do so—[Interruption.] I am delighted that the House supports us.
We still need a full audit of critical infrastructure. I deplore the fact that the flood risk regulations have gone through without proper scrutiny and, I understand, without proper consultation. With the reservation that several issues that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening are worthy of further debate in Committee, we wish the Bill a fair wind and we hope that it will be even better than it is now once it leaves Committee.
With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the debate. It has been an extremely good one, because without exception hon. Members have spoken with local knowledge, insight and a clarity of commitment to using this legislation to deal with the problems of flooding and enable society to cope with it better.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for his support for the Bill. I was slightly puzzled by his reference to the emergency response in 2007 because having visited a lot of places and talked to a lot of people, I have to say that it does not reflect my view or, in fairness, what Sir Michael Pitt had to say. On the balance between the national and the local, about which the hon. Gentleman and several others spoke, I hope that on reflection they will agree that the Bill does provide the necessary flexibility to allow the right arrangements to be put in place. The hon. Gentleman asked about Cave, and—as I am sure he is aware—we are consulting on those recommendations. I thought that the example he gave of a local community protecting itself was a really good one, and shows clearly that it can be done without the need for additional legislation.
On national infrastructure, I can inform the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who raised this issue, that the Cabinet Office has now screened nearly 1,000 critical national infrastructure sites and identified 171 across nine sectors that are in areas that could be flooded by rivers or the sea. The lead Departments in all cases are preparing sector resilience plans, which will be produced by the end of this year. If time allowed, I could give several specific examples of steps that have been taken, but I shall refer to just one. The National Grid has invested more than £1 million in flood defence capability, including buying 1.2 km of flood defence barriers, which it can take to places that are under threat.
On the scrutiny of the national strategy, it would be for the Select Committee to decide what it wished to do. I always welcome its interest and attention. On the water framework directive, a statutory instrument establishing a power for the Environment Agency to improve the physical characteristics of water bodies was laid on 1 December, to come into force on 22 December this year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) spoke with great authority because of his experience, and he made a powerful point about the need to strike a balance, including when it comes to agricultural land. Those who argue that greater protection should be given—and I understand the arguments that are made—must be equally honest about where the resources, which will always amount to a certain sum, will be found to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said that he did not want to be churlish just as I was about to intervene and say that I thought he was being a tad churlish in some of his comments. On private sewers—which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) also mentioned—we already have the powers to make the change, and the House should not worry about that. Yes, there will be a small cost, but the argument for it is that this is in effect a national insurance scheme to protect householders who have no idea that they would have to bear the cost—
Will the Secretary of State give way?
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I was generous in giving way to him earlier, and I want to try to respond to as many points as possible.
Insurance is a problem, and we have to have an answer to it. On more precise flood warnings, we do not need legislation to do that. Indeed, as the capacity of the flood forecasting centre at the Met Office improves and gives better and more accurate flood warnings, the House may rest assured that those will be issued.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who has played a significant role in highlighting the unfairness of surface water charges and gave some striking examples from his area concerning United Utilities. As for who will be covered, he will have seen clause 42(4)(c), and of course guidance will be issued as well.
I hope that today was not the last time that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talks on such matters, because he has chaired the Select Committee with distinction, enormous insight and great courtesy. I echo his thanks to the staff of his Committee. I thought that he spoke particularly eloquently about the need to be straight with each other. That has been a theme in this debate, and I agree with it. On the floods directive, I can assure him that we will, when necessary, stitch the bits together so that if changes are made to the Bill, they can be reflected in the regulations. Bridges should certainly be regularly inspected. He also talked about informing members of the public. One of the striking things about this matter—this came across in Sir Michael Pitt’s report—is that we all have a personal responsibility. When a flood warning is issued, it means something and we have to pay attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood reminded us that the internal drainage boards are good in some places, but not so good in others. Regional flood defence committees have an important role to play, and I agree with him completely. I liked his phrase about the environment acting as a sponge. He, too, said in respect of coastal erosion that we have to be honest with each other, and that includes everybody involved taking responsibility for the problem, because we cannot get into a situation where people start to say, “Well, the EA is the harbinger of doom and bringer of bad news.” This is everyone’s problem, and we all have to pitch in and do something about it.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) was kind in his expressions of appreciation. When it comes to building on flood plains, the responsibility is clear: it rests with the local planning authority. The question is whether we can guard against flood risk. Indeed, we meet and debate here on a flood plain that is protected by the Thames barrier. On alternative supplies, he will be aware that the Mythe defences have now been reinforced and that Walham has a flood defence. However, there is an alternative water supply, as we saw with the distribution of bottled water, which worked well. There were problems with the bowsers, but those were eventually sorted out.
I know from the terrific constituency work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that when he speaks about the importance of community consultation and involvement, he means it and lives it. I have seen that for myself through the great work done in his constituency dealing with contaminated land. The most striking thing about that was getting people involved. That is another aspect of sharing responsibility. If we say, “Hey, we’ve got a problem. What are we going to do about it?”, people tend to respond, as he knows well. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made exactly the same point. On insurance, we need ideas and to think about it, and my right hon. Friend made a powerful point about affordability.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) was right to talk about prevention. I say to her what I said to the Opposition spokesman. The Bill has the flexibility to enable local authorities to work together in a way that will suit them. In the end, it is up to the local authorities to enter into the spirit of that flexible provision in the Bill and to make it happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked about training for fire service staff. We have offered assistance with physical material by ensuring that the right training is in place. He is right to say that those who are putting their lives at risk should have the right equipment and knowledge to undertake their important work.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about the need for a better understanding of risks and local warnings. Better technology will allow that. He is also right to say that we will have to think about bridge design, especially in the light of experiences in Cumbria. The right hon. Member for Fylde made this point as well, and the natural hazards team is looking at that very question.
I pay tribute to the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) has played in the current difficult circumstances, as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), who really has been at the sharp end and has been quite magnificent. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made a powerful case for accountability. Let me assure him that the water companies will be under a duty to act consistently with the national flood strategy. They will be required to co-operate with flood risk authorities, and the Secretary of State will be able to direct water companies or other authorities to carry out flood risk management functions if they fail to do so themselves.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) has more reason that just about anybody in the Chamber to be concerned about coastal erosion and rising sea levels. It is not a question of the EA trying to frighten anybody; there is a problem and we have to share it. The important point is the spirit in which that is entered into.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) talked about the Walker review. She is a powerful advocate for her constituents in the south-west and chairs the all-party group on water with great energy. She raised the question of arrears, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, and if she is on the Committee, I suspect that it will be returned to.
I was glad to hear what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said about the change that had taken place, because that was where a different approach had been adopted. We will make provisions for appeals, through the relevant provisions in clauses 38 and 39, based on existing provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) chairs the all-party group on flood prevention, also with distinction. I agree with him about regional flood defence committees. As for water companies and sustainable drainage systems, the body giving the approval should also have the responsibility to maintain, because that will make it think about the decision. However, water companies will also be statutory consultees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud talked about riparian owners. Assets will be registered under clause 21, which will enable the lead local flood authority to identify the cause of a problem and speed its resolution, should it arise. On the choices that have to be made, they will be a combination of collective defence, where possible, and greater resistance and resilience, but also individuals thinking about how they can protect the properties in which they live.
I pay tribute to the careful interest that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) takes in these matters and the expertise with which she contributed from the Dispatch Box this evening. On the expenses faced by local authorities, as she will be aware, there is support under the Bellwin arrangements, which we have again extended to 100 per cent. cover above the threshold, as we did in 2007. There is also other support available, through various different schemes. On the role of the Environment Agency, I would simply say to her that—how shall I put it?—when it comes to responsibility, one person’s prescription is another person’s clarity. The Bill is right to make it clear where the EA has responsibilities. The SUDS definition is the same north and south of the border, and existing SUDS are likely to be designated under clause 30 and schedule 1.
Finally, I want to come back to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, who speaks for the Opposition. This is a week in which the world’s leaders have been gathering in Copenhagen to try to bring home an agreement, which is essential if we are to deal with the consequences of a changing climate, one of which—flooding—we have been talking about this evening. This is a world in which we will have to live within our means. That includes nature’s ability to accommodate human beings—our settlement and our activity—and we will have to do that with due respect for nature’s power. What we are doing this evening represents a really important step towards helping the people who have been so badly affected by flooding in recent times. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Flood and Water Management Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Flood and Water Management Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 21 January 2010.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Kerry McCarthy.)
Question agreed to.
Flood and Water Management Bill (money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Flood and Water Management Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Kerry McCarthy.)
Question agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion in the name of Secretary John Denham relating to Rating and Valuation, the motion in the name of Mr Secretary Hain relating to Constitutional Law and the motion in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to the Electoral Commission. —( Kerry McCarthy.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Ration and Valuation
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 25 November, be approved.—( Kerry McCarthy.)
Question agreed to.
Constitutional Law
I beg to move,
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Welsh Language) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 10 November, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
This legislative competence order has already been approved by the National Assembly, and I would like to put on record at the outset this Government’s strong commitment to the Welsh language. I hope that my personal support for its future development speaks for itself. Parts of my constituency are strongly Welsh speaking, and when Neath hosted the National Eisteddfod in 1994, I gave a welcoming address speaking in Welsh—after considerable coaching, as my Welsh is limited. I wanted to do that to make a statement of support, and I was grateful for the way in which it was received. When I was Welsh Education Minister in 1998, I extended Welsh as a compulsory subject—[Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State. I would be grateful if Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quickly and quietly. I know that those who are remaining will not want to converse privately, but to attend to the business of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I was Welsh Education Minister in 1998, I extended Welsh as a compulsory subject to the GCSE-age cohort, in the face of hostile criticism in some quarters.
Hon. Members will know that draft legislative competence orders—LCOs—are not normally debated on the Floor of the House, but I was determined that that should happen in this instance. The Welsh language plays a central, fundamental role in Welsh society, and in the day-to-day lives of many people in Wales. I believe that the unique importance of this LCO merits all Members of this House having the opportunity to debate it.
Our debate here this evening follows on from the approval of this LCO last week in the House of Lords, from the Welsh Grand Committee debate on the proposals on 14 October and from the scrutiny undertaken by the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Lords Constitution Committee and a Committee of the National Assembly. I would like to commend the Welsh Affairs Committee in particular for its first-rate scrutiny of this LCO, and for its role in building the broad consensus that now exists around it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) for his meticulous leadership of the Committee. I have been heartened by that consensus: a broad church of interest groups, together with those whom the LCO might affect, now supports it in principle. This provides a solid foundation on which the Assembly Government can build in developing proposals for an Assembly Measure to take forward the language.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the process that he has adopted on this occasion ought to set a precedent for Governments of all colours, in the sense that, once a matter that is clearly in the domain of the Assembly—in spirit and also, to some extent, in words—has been decided by the Assembly, it would not be in order for us to overturn it? Does he therefore acknowledge that we are putting a marker in the sand for how these important decisions might be made in the future, and how they should be respected when they come from Cardiff?
In this case, we have seen how detailed scrutiny—undertaken primarily by this Parliament, either in this House or through the Welsh Affairs Committee—has improved a draft piece of legislation that would not otherwise have been in such good shape. That is the way I would respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
The Government’s approach to this LCO has been informed by four principles. The first is that it is logical and appropriate for the National Assembly for Wales to be able to legislate on the Welsh language. The nation’s legislature is surely the natural home for making laws in relation to the language.
The second principle is that the order builds on the firm foundations of the Welsh Language Act 1993. That landmark legislation ensured that organisations providing services of a public nature implement schemes for carrying out some or all of their business in Welsh. These requirements now need updating better to fit new times, but the 1993 Act provides a sound basis for the focus of the LCO on key public services provided by public authorities or private companies.
Thirdly, it is crucial that as we move forward, we strike the right balance between the interests of those who use Welsh as their mother tongue and who wish to conduct their day-to-day business in the language and the large majority of people in Wales—some 80 per cent.—who do not speak Welsh.
The final principle is that any duty should be applied in a reasonable and proportionate way. This is the key point made by the Welsh Affairs Committee and it has my full support. This is particularly important in the context of ensuring that business and enterprise in Wales support these proposals. No one would want to see the private sector discouraged from investing in Wales because of burdensome Welsh language duties being inappropriately imposed on business. What is right in respect of a large public authority need not necessarily be right for a smaller private sector company. What is right in Meirionnydd may not be right for Monmouthshire.
There has been a great deal of consultation on these proposals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) sought the views of interested parties on the proposed order earlier this year, and I am grateful to him as he paved the way for the consensus that has now been built. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have held discussions with a large number of organisations—and their representative bodies—that may be affected by subsequent Assembly measures. This engagement has been vital in helping to frame the draft LCO before us this evening.
This LCO, then, is built on firm and clear principles. It is grounded in a common- sense approach to developing the language and, in drafting it, we have responded to the very real concerns of some about its scope while at the same time meeting the pressures for change. I believe it gets right the intricate balance of interests that hon. Members will know the Welsh language engages; it builds a broad consensus on how to proceed and it works in the best interests of everyone in Wales.
The draft LCO would enable the National Assembly to legislate to promote or facilitate the use of the Welsh language and the treatment of the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality. This is based on the wording from the Welsh Language Act 1993. It does not extend to the use of Welsh in the courts; nor would it allow the National Assembly to impose duties in relation to the Welsh language on any body other than those falling within the 10 categories listed in the order. These categories include public authorities; bodies established for specified purposes by royal charter; bodies receiving public money amounting to £400,000 or more in a financial year; and organisations providing key public services, including electricity, gas, water, post, telecoms, bus and rail services.
The LCO includes a crucial safeguard enabling bodies in these categories to challenge the imposition of Welsh language duties on grounds of reasonableness and proportionality. This is a robust safeguard against any inappropriate imposition of such duties. It ensures that the reasonableness of duties will be a key consideration in developing Assembly measures, and provides an important reassurance against disproportionate obligations being imposed on any body, and especially smaller organisations, whether they be charities or companies in business sectors such as mobile telephony or energy.
I believe this LCO puts in place a framework for the devolution of powers over the Welsh language to the Assembly, which is robust and provides for a strong and healthy future for the language by building on the achievements since 1993 in a common-sense, evolutionary way to make the language a source of pride for everyone in Wales, whether or not they speak Welsh. I commend it to the House.
May I begin by offering my condolences and, I believe, those of the whole House to the new First Minister on the untimely death of his mother, of which we heard earlier today? I am sure that everyone would wish me to pass our condolences to him.
I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the opportunity to debate the legislative competence order on the Floor of the House. It has undergone considerable amendment since it was first proposed by the Welsh Assembly and referred to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and the Welsh Grand Committee, and the opportunity for us to scrutinise its closing stages on the Floor of the House is very welcome. I do not intend to speak for long, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.
I am aware that accusations have been made in certain quarters. It has been claimed that the LCO has been delayed in the House, and that the Select Committee’s recommendations—most of which have now been adopted—were superfluous. Indeed, that criticism has dogged the LCO process from the beginning. Those critics have argued what we are considering is a permissive power, not a Measure, and that it is not for Parliament to second-guess what may or may not be done with an LCO once it has been passed by the Assembly. Our duty, they say, is only to scrutinise whether it is appropriate for the power to be passed down.
It has been argued that LCOs should not be scrutinised as if they were fully fledged Measures, but it is clear that to pass down a power that had not been scrutinised by the House of Commons would defeat the object of the existence of this place, and its role and function in our legislative process. I think that the Secretary of State and I have similar views in that regard.
Is it not worrying that if it were not for the House of Commons with all its Members, and the Members of another place, there would be very little scrutiny from the 60 Members who currently inhabit the Welsh Assembly?
I have to say that on this occasion I agree with the Secretary of State. I think it important for LCOs to be properly scrutinised in this place. As the Order Paper makes clear, this is a constitutional matter, and it is right for it to be debated on the Floor of the House.
I think it important to give some thought to what it means to say that the passing down of a power is “appropriate”. Of course, nothing seems more immediately appropriate than passing power over the Welsh language to the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly is certainly capable of exercising that power, and it is an elected body, just as the House of Commons is. I would argue, however, that what we mean by “appropriate” in this case is not whether the Assembly can do the job, but whether it makes more sense to legislate on this matter at Welsh level in the Assembly or at national level in Parliament.
As the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) once observed, and as I believe has been observed by the Secretary of State himself, it would be inappropriate to rubber-stamp the passing down of power to legislate on matters which, without proper scrutiny, could have unintended consequences. I have always believed that, and it has been the case with this LCO. As my grandmother used to say, two heads are better than one. I think that this extra scrutiny is welcome, and that it has improved the LCO greatly. It is entirely proper that, when deciding whether it is appropriate to pass down powers, we should pay careful attention to the scope of LCOs and their possible implications for the people of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who appears to have left the Chamber immediately after his intervention, and also with Lord Elis-Thomas, who said that legislative proposals for the Assembly should be passed automatically. I do not believe that that is the right thing to do.
Let me turn to the detail of the order. It has certainly been greatly improved since its first draft. I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis). It is clear that the system places a considerable burden on the Committee, and it is testimony to the dedication of all its members in all parties that they managed to do such a good job despite their immense work load. However, there are still a number of issues that I want to raise. I hope that the Secretary of State, or the Minister, can provide clarification or reassurance both for myself and for those who have raised matters with me.
The first issue is the future of the Welsh Language Board. It has been doing a first-class job in promoting the language under Meri Huws, yet no one seems to have raised what will happen to it and to the jobs involved, and I know that it was not consulted in an appropriate fashion before the LCO was promulgated by the coalition Assembly Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to shine some light on its future.
The order applies to a number of bodies outside the public sector and thus outside the scope of the Welsh Language Act 1993, including gas, electricity, water and telecoms providers. I appreciate that the intention is to allow the people in Wales to live their lives in the language of their choice, and I, too, support that aim, yet many of these companies already have some form of language scheme. The comment I have heard most often from such companies is that take-up is severely limited. For example, Wales & West Utilities Ltd identified that over the three years of operation between 2006 and 2009, in 600,000 calls to its hotline only four requests were made to converse in Welsh. Also, of 152,000 pieces of correspondence generated annually, only two requests for Welsh correspondence have been received. Surely the energies of government would be better used in encouraging private companies to adopt Welsh language schemes voluntarily than in legislating further.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I would like to make a little more progress first.
As the Federation of Small Businesses has said, businesses will respond to customers more than to legislation, and continuing to promote the language is surely the best route to take. If a significant customer base wanted to operate in the Welsh language, companies would have every reason to do so.
The hon. Lady is intent on promoting a voluntary approach, while pointing out that that approach has not succeeded. The company’s figures that she mentioned show that the Welsh language is seldom used under the voluntary approach. Can she explain that apparent contradiction?
I am just raising some queries which I hope the Minister will address. I think the voluntary approach has worked rather well in Wales. I have just given an example of one of the submissions to the Secretary of State, and I am asking the Minister whether he thinks we should continue to promote such schemes, rather than take the legislative route that will be available under the LCO.
Imposing a stringent language scheme on bodies, regardless of whether they already have some form of language scheme, would clearly result in additional cost. The consequences are clear: either the cost will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher bills, or companies may choose not to operate in Wales at all. As a result, Welsh consumers may be deprived of choice and competition.
The Mobile Broadband Group has expressed the concern that resources are limited in the current economic climate, and said that priority should be given to extending coverage across Wales of a service that is consistently in demand by Welsh consumers. BT has called for action to encourage uptake of existing services, rather than have new legislation that could be planned by the Assembly Government. It does not want to supply Welsh language services by law and compulsion, but is happy to continue to do so voluntarily. I hope that the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech.
Companies supplying liquid propane to rural areas, such as Calor Gas Ltd, have also raised the objection that their main competitors—suppliers of oil and coal—are exempt from the order. Any additional costs put on companies such as Calor would have to be absorbed into the cost of the liquefied petroleum gas they supply, forcing up prices, which would hit Welsh families, especially in rural areas, at a time when the fuel poverty rate in Wales stands at 340,000 households. Furthermore, the order applies not only to multinationals but to some small companies, and as the Secretary of State has said, it must be ensured that the extra cost does not risk crippling otherwise successful and growing organisations. For that reason, I welcome the test of reasonableness and proportionality that has been inserted in the order in its final form.
The order specifies that before a duty can be imposed on any organisation, there must be a clear right to appeal. I agree with that sentiment, but there are implications to the proposal. First, it sounds as though a significant bureaucracy will be necessary not only to enforce Welsh language legislation, but to deal with any appeals. I wonder where the finance is coming from to fund the appeals process, because I believe the order attracts no accompanying extra funding—perhaps the Minister could confirm that. Secondly, small organisations might feel that the process of appeal is simply too arduous to consider even operating in Wales. I am not aware of any impact assessment having been carried out, so could the Minister reassure me that such an impact assessment will be carried out, as this issue has been raised by more than one company?
The Welsh Language Act has consistently encouraged participation in Welsh language schemes on a voluntary basis, and over the years much good will has been engendered towards the language. I pay tribute to Lord Wyn Roberts, because he really is the champion of the Welsh language; I am proud to say that it is a Conservative who has protected, promoted and advanced the language with such sensitivity and wisdom. There are many people in Wales who are not Welsh speaking but who, nevertheless, feel an affinity with the language, and it will be a sad day if that sentiment and good will is damaged by higher bills or a reduction in choice and fewer services, and by a resentment that could come from compulsion
I should also mention, once again, the £400,000 threshold on public money received in consecutive years. I do so, first, because the figure seems to be merely the original arbitrary figure, just doubled. Will the Minister confirm what consultation took place over where to set the threshold, either in the original order or in the version before us, and where the figure has come from? Has it been plucked out of the air?
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I will not give way, because so many people wish to speak; I just want to finish making my points.
Secondly, it is unclear for how long a duty would be imposed on these organisations. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify whether the organisations are merely covered in the years in which they receive the requisite amount of public money or in perpetuity. Could he also clarify why it was felt necessary to include the Bank of England in the order? To date, I have seen no justification for its having been explicitly included. This legislative competence order, in its final form, has certainly addressed some of the concerns raised by both Labour and Conservative Members about the original draft. Certain questions remain, however, and I hope that he will address them in his closing remarks.
On the face of it, it appears appropriate for the Assembly to gain competence over the Welsh language. My concern is that the approach that seems to have been taken could have wider repercussions. In the course of this debate over the past few months, nobody has produced any substantial evidence or proof that the existing arrangements were not working or were unsatisfactory, or that there was any dissatisfaction with them. Indeed, I am not aware that there was any significant demand for legislation in this area at all.
However, the business grant that was previously given to help businesses to implement Welsh language schemes has quietly and quickly been phased out. Instead of supporting businesses with the costs of bilingual materials and signage, it seems that the Plaid Cymru-Labour coalition has decided to resort to compulsion, at the risk, perhaps, of forfeiting the good will that the language enjoys. Conservative Members are great supporters of the Welsh language, and it is undeniable that major progress on the language has come under Conservative Governments. However, the decision to go down the route of new legislation in the current economic climate carries risks of raising costs and fuel bills, and of deterring certain businesses from operating in Wales—unless, of course, the Minister can answer the questions that I have rightly raised on behalf of the people who have contacted us. Not only would that be extremely damaging economically, but it would risk doing harm to the language itself—nobody in this place wants that.
I want to see the language protected and nurtured, not resented or turned into a non-tariff barrier to business or to consumer choice. If this order goes through, measures will flow from it, and I hope that none of my fears are realised. At least I know that we have tried to identify those issues that may cause problems and to ask the questions that have been raised with us. We will be watching progress on this matter closely to ensure that, particularly in these difficult economic times, nothing is done to disadvantage Welsh businesses, Welsh consumers, Welsh families and, most importantly, the language itself.
It is a genuine pleasure to take part in this debate tonight, albeit that it is late in the day. However, I think that it is right to say that in many quarters there will be a palpable sigh of relief that the order in its final form is now before us.
Some outside this place have condemned the presence of this business on the Order Paper today and in particular the last session of the Welsh Grand Committee as deliberate attempts at delay and prevarication. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that what the Secretary of State said was true—he has just about succeeded, judging by the turn-out this evening—and that there was a conscious effort to ensure that there was the widest possible consultation on a matter that could be emotive and sensitive and that is very important. I hope that there will be approval by the end of the debate, too, although I hesitate to say that after the last speech.
Tonight’s debate is not about the merits of the LCO process. It is about transferring powers to our Assembly, at its request, and using the LCO process to achieve it. I can think of no other area of policy where there is such a strong moral case. I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and our Chairman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), is always at great pains when we scrutinise all LCOs to ensure that we do not stray into the realms of Measures that the Assembly might introduce. The irony in this process was that some of the most strident supporters of the order were telling us on the one hand to keep our noses out, as we should, and to respect the integrity of the Assembly to introduce what Measures it wants, but on the other to include certain facets in the order. Under the chairmanship of the hon. Gentleman, we resisted.
Welsh is the first language of more than half the population in Ceredigion and its use is heard across Wales, as we will no doubt hear later on, including in the more anglicised parts. Linguistic Welsh language education policy based on choice is working, and it is working well. More than 40 per cent. of three to 15-year-olds have an understanding and practical use of the language in our schools, compared with about 20 per cent. of the over-45s. It is a success story that is moving forward. That growth among the young is, I believe, the greatest motivation for the order to proceed and for Measures to follow, so that the growing number of Welsh speakers can access services in the language of their choice. That principle is as valid for the children whom I used to teach in my primary school a few miles from the English border as it is for my children, who are learning and speaking Welsh in a category A school in Y Fro Gymraeg in our village in Ceredigion. It transcends the whole country.
The jigsaw needs to fit together and the Assembly rightly wishes to acquire the capacity to fill the holes left by the passage of time since the Welsh Language Act 1993 and to advance the cause of true bilingualism. Like the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), I commend the work of Lord Roberts of Conwy in 1993 and praise the constructive way that the Assembly Minister has approached the order as well as the work of one of his predecessors—one of my party colleagues, Mrs. Jenny Randerson—who did much to initiate and promote Iaith Pawb under her watch.
We have the system that we have, and of course some of us would welcome an even broader transfer of powers, but the order is none the less welcome. The scrutiny has been immensely worthwhile. It has brought us a much improved order, in particular because of the introduction of the concept of proportionality and reasonableness. I believe that many of the sceptics have been reassured. I welcome the increase in the threshold to £400,000. It gives a more reasonable basis on which we can move forward in the future. There was a question mark over whether there should be an arbitrary threshold, and whether it was the right way forward. This figure is certainly an improvement on that of £200,000. I welcome also the disapplication of those in receipt of one-off payments. That, too, made great sense.
Now in particular, at the end of the process and despite what we heard earlier, I want to welcome the response from the business community. I remember a very difficult meeting of the Federation of Small Businesses in my constituency, where I tried to justify the original order to a very sceptical audience, concerned at the perceived added costs during the recession. It was heartening that in the evidence that people from the FSB gave to our Committee, they said that they felt reassured by the assurances given to them by the Minister for Heritage in the Assembly, and it was especially heartening to see the response of the CBI. Its initial evidence to us showed that it was sceptical and concerned about the implications but, at the end of the process, it has said publicly that
“it is significant that this…proportionality and reasonableness”
element
“has now been written on to the face of the bill.”
It is happy with the legislation and wants it to proceed, and I think that many of us wish to proceed on a positive note.
All parties—most parties; I should qualify that—have worked well to arrive at where we are now. The Chairman of our Select Committee ensured that we reached consensus. There was consensus in the Welsh Grand Committee, and I hope that there will be consensus tonight. Liberal Democrats are confident that the order will give the Assembly the tools that it needs to develop the next stage of Welsh language provision, and I am happy to offer the order my party’s support, although I still look forward to the day when the Assembly exercises even greater autonomy, unfettered by this place.
I add my condolences on behalf of the Welsh Affairs Committee to Mr. Carwyn Jones following his bereavement today.
I am pleased to speak in support of the order, which is important for the people of Wales. I speak from the perspective of being Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which produced a unanimous cross-party report supporting the principles underpinning the order. The Welsh Affairs Committee has an important role in carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed LCOs and ensuring that the final versions are fit for purpose. Both my Committee and the Assembly’s scrutiny committee recommended changes to the original proposed order to establish reasonable, proportionate and cost-effective language legislation. I am pleased that our key recommendations have been reflected in the draft order presented by the Secretary of State for approval today. I thank him for his kind words of support for the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee, with which, of course, I agree.
I compliment the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on their work. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, introducing reasonableness and proportionality into the LCO was probably a good thing, but it is strange that that has to be in the order and that we cannot trust the Assembly to be reasonable and proportionate when it brings forward Measures.
It is not strange at all; it is perfectly straightforward. As it happens, that was the way in which we achieved unanimity in the Committee.
It is also a significant achievement that an order that was originally perceived as controversial has, in its revised form, secured cross-party support. I feel that that was achieved as a consequence of listening carefully to all sectors of Welsh society. The support was unanimous, which no one could have predicted.
The Committee made the important point that while language legislation is a fundamental part of ensuring that the Welsh language continues to thrive, it is far from the whole picture. That was demonstrated by the evidence that we took during our inquiry including, crucially, from the Catalan Government, who have a long experience of language law. The Catalan witnesses clearly felt that legal sanctions were secondary to the development of a positive culture of acceptance of and support for the language—we are now at that point in Wales. Compulsion and enforcement need to be secondary to a continuation of a consensual progress and should be used only as a last resort. Clarity of expectation, as reflected in legislation, should be the primary route for further progress, and I believe that the order fulfils that aim well.
Hon. Members representing all the major parties and rural, urban and valley constituencies listened and responded to the concerns, aspirations and, most of all, the united pride in our language expressed by Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers. That was the key to our success, and the success of the LCO is that it has not proved to be divisive but has unified Wales and the Welsh people in its support.
Only today, I received an e-mail from the senior public affairs executive of E.ON UK plc, in which she said:
“We welcome the changes to the LCO following debate in both Westminster and Cardiff. We believe that removing energy generators from the scope of the LCO was appropriate, given that generators provide no direct service to customers. We also welcome the introduction of the ‘reasonableness and proportionality’ clause.”
Against that background of unity, I would simply say to the House tonight, “Rrhowch eich cefnogaeth i'r Iaith Gymraeg heno.”
I urge the House therefore, as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, to give this legislative competence order, its full support tonight. As the Abercraf miners’ banner proclaims, in the colours of the African National Congress,
“mewn undeb mae nerth a heddwch”—
in unity there is strength and peace.
Order. It is worth reminding hon. and right hon. Members that I have imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.
Perhaps I should begin with a few points about the remarks of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who speaks for the Conservatives. She seems to be entirely obsessed with compulsion, without recognising that compulsion is a central feature of the Welsh Language Act 1993, which was passed by this place after the great work carried out by Lord Roberts.
There is compulsion in Wales, where Welsh speakers are compelled each day to speak English or do without. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, even in this place, the very cockpit of British democracy, I am compelled to speak English or you would rightly show me the door. There is compulsion in all these matters: compulsion is nothing new in respect of language use in Wales, where people are compelled to use English.
My second point is for the benefit of those struggling to record my words earlier. After 49 years of struggling with English, my English deserted me at the crucial moment. The point that I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham was that she was praising the voluntary approach while at the same time pointing out that it did not seem to work. She quoted the figures, and the words that I was struggling to find were, “How does she reconcile those two contrary standpoints?” However, we got her answer anyway, such as it was.
I am glad to see the LCO reach this final stage. Emancipation for the Welsh language has been the focus of my work, political and otherwise, for at least the last 38 years. In that time, I have been inspired in many ways, for example by the people from all over the world who have moved to Wales and learned Welsh. I have also been inspired by the first words of children as they learned the language, and by my own grandson, Osian Rhys, speaking his first words in Welsh. I was seven when I learned English, so perhaps when he gets to that age he will also speak English—although that may happen a bit earlier these days.
We also have a vigorous culture through the medium of Welsh. That includes our literature and music, but also the recently published four-volume dictionary of Welsh published by the university of Wales. That is a towering and incredible intellectual feat for what is a fairly small language group. We have all kinds that we could be very proud of, but problems have always arisen throughout my concern for the Welsh language over all these years. Despite the vigour of the Welsh language, and of the campaign in its favour, there have always been problems and inequality. That is why, when talking about the Welsh language, I use the word “emancipation” advisedly.
The LCO is a progressive and radical step towards ensuring that it will eventually become possible for people to live their lives through the medium of Welsh, able to take for granted all the things that speakers of English take for granted. We will do so without continually having to ask, to press, to argue and eventually to organise and to protest, as I have done to demonstrate my concern for the language. Hopefully, one will be able to live one’s life normally through the medium of the Welsh language.
The LCO is a step towards winning equal rights for Welsh speakers. It does not go the whole way; there is further work to be done. I draw the attention of the House to two of my ten-minute Bills, one on bilingual juries and one on the registration of births and deaths in Welsh, both of which can be passed only in this place. If the order is passed, much of the work in future will be undertaken in Wales. That is how it should be.
It is striking that during the long, long passage of the order, no one, as far as I know, has argued that responsibility for the Welsh language should not be passed to the Welsh Assembly. There have been intense discussions about the nature of the powers that are to be passed and the conditions attached, but the central fact tonight is that if the order is passed through the House, responsibility for the Welsh language will be passed to the Assembly. That is a striking and radical step. We should be rightly proud of having taken it. Twelve years ago, when the Labour Government came in, that would have been seen by many people as an impossibility. I am glad to acknowledge that we have come this far.
Circumstances have changed substantially, of course, over those years and certainly since the Welsh Language Act 1993. The implementation of any social legislation should be reviewed and remade every now and then. Perhaps 15 years is a proper period to revisit it. In that time, many changes have taken place, most strikingly in Wales in the demography of the language. When I first became interested in the issue, one could reasonably expect to find Welsh speakers among the older group of the population. Now it is clear that Welsh speakers are preponderantly young people. The Welsh language is getting younger and growing. That is a striking fact, and the law needs to respond to that.
Education has changed substantially. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, Welsh became a compulsory subject. That brought about profound changes. There have been changes in broadcasting and in the daily use of the language. A significant point in our discussion about whether telecommunications should be included is that there has been a great change in the use of technology, particularly by young people.
We were all struck by the fact that the average age at which young people acquire a mobile telephone is eight. At the age of eight, they are using those little devices, which at present usually speak English. However, when our Catalan friends came over to give evidence, they pointed out that if one presses a certain button on a mobile phone, it speaks Catalan. There is no technical problem to prevent it providing a service through the medium of Catalan, and there should be no problem in providing a service through the medium of Welsh. The European context has changed a great deal, and Catalan, Basque and other European so-called minority or lesser used languages are more prominently used, and Welsh has been used in Brussels.
In closing, I pay tribute to people who have contributed to the generation, discussion and development of the LCO. It has been a long process. It would be remiss of me not to pay a generous tribute to my colleagues at the Assembly, Rhodri Glyn Thomas and Alun Ffred Jones, for their vision and their perseverance. At this late hour, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate the Secretary of State and his deputy, who have worked hard, as well as the members of the Welsh Affairs Committee and of the Committee in the Assembly.
I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State took the rather negative tone that she took earlier. Her colleague, the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), has contributed positively to the discussions, although we took different sides on some questions. We did not agree on everything, but it was disappointing that the hon. Lady adopted such a negative tone in her remarks.
We have reached a conclusion. In part it represents a compromise on all sides, but it is also a highly significant staging post. I hope that the LCO can now progress and the Welsh Assembly can proceed with the real work, as far as the Welsh language is concerned, of passing and implementing Measures.
I share the view that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Members have expressed about the significance of this debate, and may I tell the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) how much I share their sentiments with regard to the death of Carwyn Jones’s mother? Significantly, this is the first such debate on the Floor of the House since the changeover in Cardiff, and I pay tribute to Rhodri Morgan for all the work that he has done for Wales and, particularly, for the Welsh language during his tenure in office.
For 17 months, when I held the position of Secretary of State for Wales for a second time, much of my time was spent looking at this particular legislative competence order and discussing with Rhodri Morgan how it should eventually emerge for our consideration. When Sir Emyr Jones Parry’s report came out the other week, I thought it a bit churlish when it referred to the LCO process as being too complicated, too intricate and not to be understood. I reject that. The process of creating this LCO has been exemplary, and the Welsh Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, has done a remarkable job in changing how the order has developed and how it will be accepted throughout Wales.
I, myself, decided to ensure that there was a proper consultation process, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State kindly remarked, and that process was very wide-ranging indeed. Representatives of industry, trade unions, the academic world, local government, public bodies and anyone who wanted to comment on this very important measure were allowed to do so, and they did. As a consequence of that consultation and our scrutiny here, including in the Welsh Grand Committee, in the other place and finally in the House tonight, the Measures that the Assembly eventually passes will be better. That is absolutely the case.
I welcome the order for a number of reasons, but perhaps the most important one is how the world has changed, since I was a lad, in terms of those of us who represent areas that are not Welsh-speaking—areas encompassing 80 per cent. of the population of Wales. Those of us who are Welsh men and women and proud of it, but who cannot speak the Welsh language, now accept the language as part of our life in the same way that those who speak the language have for many generations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) has often said, that is largely due to education. In our schools throughout Wales, from Monmouthshire, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, to Meirionnydd and beyond, we see people who are able to speak and learn the language in a way that we could never do in the past. That is important, and this LCO will give the Assembly the authority and the competence to extend the use of Welsh language throughout our nation.
We must look at one or two caveats, however. We must recognise that different parts of Wales need to be treated differently. If we look at people living in my constituency, a south Wales mining valley, in rural Wales or in the cities, we find that there is a case for considering how the Welsh language is dealt with. Provision is universal in education, for example, but we must tread carefully with regard to business. We are still in a recession, and it is good that the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and businesses generally support this LCO. They believe that the Welsh language is very much a part of our heritage, but they also warn that the measure should be implemented with sensitivity and reasonableness.
A soft touch is required in terms of how the measure is implemented throughout the whole of Wales. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) made reference to compulsion. Of course this LCO would allow the Assembly to introduce compulsory legislation for people in Wales, but it is better to have consensus than compulsion because that is more acceptable. Compulsion may be there as a last resort, but it should not be the first method by which we deal with this issue. If those whose job it is to enforce the legislation, whether it be the new commissioner, the Welsh Language Board or the Assembly itself, are heavy-handed, then the measure will have exactly the opposite effect to what we in this Chamber have been arguing for over the past year in saying that this is an important piece of legislation. I do not believe that that will happen, but that people will be sensible about this.
Nearly two centuries ago, when my great-grandparents came from Ireland and the west of England to the eastern valley of Monmouthshire, 60 or 70 per cent. of the population were indigenous Welsh speakers. We can tell that from looking at the Welsh chapels that are still in my valley and the history of the place. I recently read a biography of Thomas Thomas of Pontypool, a great Baptist leader who was Welsh speaking, and who said that with the great influx of English speakers coming into the valleys of Wales, it was necessary to temper the approach with moderation. I believe that in the past 20 years, particularly in the past 10 years since the Assembly has been operating, we have adopted the right approach. Because of the sensitive way in which these matters have been approached, in my constituency and the valley of Torfaen, which is one of the most English-speaking constituencies in the whole of Wales, we now have a Welsh-medium comprehensive school and Welsh-medium primary schools. Welsh is taught in every school, and the language is no longer a divisive issue.
When this LCO goes to the Assembly in Cardiff for it to pass the necessary Measures, as it rightly should, rather than this place, I hope that the Members of the Assembly will realise—I am sure they will, as do Members of this House—that the process over the past year has been one of great co-operation between legislators in Cardiff and in London: all of us representing the Welsh people, all of us with the interests of the Welsh language at heart.
I wish the measure well. Like my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends, I believe that it is a milestone, not only in the history of the way in which we deal with Welsh matters in the House of Commons but in the history of the Welsh language.
I join the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, on the loss of his mother.
Tonight’s debate, as several colleagues have remarked, is the culmination of a process that has shown the best of parliamentary scrutiny and shown that Welsh MPs have an invaluable contribution to make in strengthening devolution and in supporting the Welsh language. I very much echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, it was a privilege to be involved in that scrutiny. Before we started, there was a prediction that there would be division. There were fears that it would all end in tears: on the one hand, there would be too light a touch; on the other, too onerous a burden would be imposed on business.
That process of scrutiny reflected the way that things have changed over several years. The language has been a matter of division and controversy in the past, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it is now valued by the vast majority of those who do not themselves speak Welsh. That includes many who have chosen to move to Wales from England or Scotland, or other parts of the world, as well as those of us who speak the language. I believe that that is largely because our model has been one of choice rather than compulsion. Education through the Welsh language was unusual as recently as when I and my wife were choosing it for our children. It is now chosen by increasing numbers every year. Let us not forget that a great deal of the progress that was made was due to decisions of Labour local authorities in places such as Glamorgan, Clwyd and Gwent. Those decisions were often taken by councils with very little representation, if any, of Welsh speakers.
In the Assembly, the language has never been an issue. Why? Because it has been possible for people to use Welsh or English as they choose and be answered in Welsh or English, and for translation to be available to all. When the LCO came forward, there were doubts from organisations such as the CBI, which were worried that the powers might be used to put onerous burdens on companies. I spent some time with the CBI and its members debating these issues, and I found that some of the concerns were genuine but some arose from considerable misunderstandings about the intentions behind the LCO. I pay tribute to David Rosser and members of the CBI for being willing to spend time exploring the issues and expressing their concerns.
Those concerns are answered by two things. The first is the provisions requiring reasonableness and proportionality. Essentially, what the Assembly has to ask itself in deciding whether to approve any Measure is whether it will help citizens to choose to use the Welsh language rather than just increase burdens or bureaucracy.
The second thing that answers the concerns is crucial, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen referred to it. It is the advice from the Catalan Government. When we asked whether legislation was necessary, their answer was essentially, “Yes, it requires a framework of law, but all your action thereafter should be directed to building consensus and seeking agreement to enable people to be positive about the developments that you want to promote.” I hope that there will be the wisdom on the part of Assembly Ministers and the Assembly itself to make that the test all the time. They must ask themselves, “Have we done enough to build consensus? Will this actually help citizens to make positive choices about the use of the Welsh language?” The Assembly should use Measures when they are necessary to support consensus, not as an alternative to the hard work of building consensus.
There are three lessons that we need to learn in future from this process on the Welsh language LCO. The first is on policy development. It is important that there should be full debate, and that the intentions behind any proposal should be thought through properly. Clear policy is necessary for creating good law. The second is on drafting. Intelligent and sophisticated drafting is not easy, and it is very easy to have loose phraseology and create unintended consequences. I fear that the drafting in LCOs has sometimes been too general, or certainly the first draft. It seems to have followed the Whitehall pattern, if you like—officials seeking to draft something because there may not be another opportunity for primary legislation for a number of years. Vague and loose language is therefore used to give the widest possible powers. That is not a good way of drafting legislation, especially because the LCO process makes it possible for the Assembly to come back for a further order if it wants to do something more, without any great delay.
The third lesson to learn concerns scrutiny. The Committee of the Assembly did a good job and asked the right questions, and we on the Welsh Affairs Committee quoted extensively from its findings and evidence in reaching our own conclusions. However, it did not provide answers, which the Welsh Affairs Committee did. As others have, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon for building consensus in his capacity as its Chairman. It is an example that we should all follow. I pay tribute also to the members of all four parties who worked hard on getting the matter right and put a great deal of time and effort into the discussions and examining the evidence; to the Assembly for accepting our suggestions; and especially to the new First Minister, then the Counsel-General, for his willingness to engage with MPs. Finally, I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for their willingness to take our recommendations and use them. I say that because it is very easy to say, “No. We have drafted it this way. It is not invented here. We will go the way we intend.” The willingness to listen to the wisdom of the Members of four parties on the Welsh Affairs Committee is good for Wales and we should celebrate it.
The best model for devolution is shown by the way the order has been dealt with. At the end of the day, it shows a willingness to trust the Assembly, but also to encourage it to be joined up and to be intelligent in its use of the power being transferred. The process has also made use of the knowledge and experience of Welsh Members of Parliament of the four parties that are represented here. That must be a good model for the future.
I do not intend to detain the House for long on this subject. I feel something of an interloper in these affairs, but as various right hon. and hon. Members will know, including a number of former Ministers on the Government Benches, I have ventured forth on Welsh affairs on a number of occasions, imperfectly but enthusiastically. As a Member of this Parliament, I of course take an interest in the whole of the Kingdom.
The background to this debate is the Welsh Language Act 1967 and the Welsh Language Act 1993. It is instrumental to consider those for a moment in the context of the order. The order transfers competence, but it seems to me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the shadow Secretary of State, pointed out, and as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made clear in a typically splendid contribution, important that we do so in a collaborative fashion and with what the latter described as a light touch.
To that end, I want to draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the debate on the 1993 Act, which began, as they will remember, in the House of Lords. There are two aspects of that debate that I think are pertinent to tonight’s considerations. The first was the comment made by the Minister who introduced the Bill. He said:
“The Bill provides for the implementation of this principle”—
that, by the way, is the principle that the Welsh and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality—
“in ways which are appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1993; Vol. 541, c. 836.]
That abiding principle of reasonableness seems essential to our considerations of the possibilities that might arise from the transfer of competence in the way the order plans. As I said, the right hon. Member for Torfaen made that point very clearly.
The three issues I would therefore like to raise are to some degree amplifications of the remarks made by the shadow Secretary of State. It is important that we consider both the disincentive effect on companies or bodies that might want to locate in Wales and the effect on organisations already situated there of any additional cost burden. I hope that that will be considered. That is certainly a reflection of some of the less favourable sentiments that have been expressed in Wales on the back of the publication of the order. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, reaction has been mixed. Part of that mixed reaction has been founded on concerns about the possible additional burdens on the organisations I mentioned.
The second question relates to the cost of implementation—the shadow Secretary of State raised the issue of appeals. It is inconceivable that there has been no modelling in Government of the likely costs of implementation. I appreciate that the absence of an impact assessment results in part from the very nature of the process that we are now enjoying, but none the less it would be interesting to hear what modelling has taken place. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State has not taken a view on the likely cost that might arise from the measure.
The third issue relates to the test of reasonableness. What test of reasonableness might be applied? What constraint might be placed on where this order could end up? The possible destinations could be very different, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen implied in his speech. We need to apply a test of reasonableness to this provision, and I hope that we might hear more about that from the Minister when he sums up.
As I said, I periodically and with some trepidation intervene on Welsh affairs in the knowledge that many other hon. Members know far more about them than I do, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may say so. None the less, it is important that hon. Members who represent constituencies far from Wales show an appropriate level of concern about the affairs of this House and of the Assembly, and the relationship between the two.
May I echo the sentiments expressed by colleagues across the House in sending our sympathy to the First Minister on his loss? Our thoughts and prayers will be with him and his family. May I also echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) in paying tribute to the retiring First Minister, who has been an exceptional First Minister for the whole of Wales for the last 10 years?
I welcome this debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House of Commons. It is right that this legislative competence order should come here, because tonight we are changing the constitution, and that should be a matter for the whole House of Commons. Indeed, this matter is listed on the Order Paper as constitutional law.
We are changing the constitution because the Government of Wales Act 2006 specifically allows us to do so by use of LCOs. I hope that in future all Welsh LCOs brought forward under this Act will come to the House in this way. Nobody here or in Wales should have any concerns about this form of scrutiny. We are, after all, changing the constitutional relationship between this sovereign Parliament and the devolved Welsh Assembly.
If we pass this LCO tonight, as I believe we will, we will pass to the Assembly the competence to make primary legislation on matters relating to the Welsh language. I approve of that, because the National Assembly for Wales is the right place to make such legislation. By bringing this matter to the Floor of the House the Government are avoiding the charge of devolution by stealth—a charge that I have laid at their door many times in the past when these LCOs have been taken upstairs in Committee, not down here. I take the view, as I did as deputy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that changes to the devolution settlement that affect the constitution should be debated in this House and, if necessary, voted on by this House. I hope that in future all LCOs relating to Wales will be brought here in this way.
This LCO, concerning legislative powers over the Welsh language, has the potential to divide Wales. I am not entirely convinced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) that this has united Wales, because—if we are honest—debates on the Welsh language have tended to divide opinion in Wales in the past, not unite it. That may be sad, but that is how it is. In the case of this LCO, there has been wide concern that the measures that will follow giving the Assembly the right to make secondary legislation will in some way discriminate against the 80 per cent. of our people who are not bilingual. Many of those concerns have been assuaged by the extensive consultation on this LCO that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen when he was Secretary of State. The work of the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Committee of the National Assembly in taking evidence has helped to reframe this LCO so that it has been more warmly welcomed across Wales. I think that this consultation is the right way to go.
I cannot see why any Assembly Minister or Member should fear open and transparent consideration of a matter that will affect every man, woman, child, business and industry in Wales. When I first heard about this LCO, I was concerned that the measure would have some adverse effect on business, industry and non-bilingual people in Wales. The Assembly has the right to make secondary legislation—in other words, to put meat on the bones of the order—when the power is passed to it. I consulted widely in my constituency and beyond, and talked to businesses, trade organisations, training providers and charities, all of which were seeking to express their concerns and worries about the use of the LCO.
I discussed the matter with colleagues and Ministers, including in the Assembly, and I know that many others did the same. We were not helped at the outset by what I must describe as a paranoid approach by some in the Assembly who seemed to go out of their way to refuse to give any indication of what might happen when they receive the power from Parliament and of how it might be operated. That was wholly unhelpful to the kind of discussions that we had in the beginning, and there is no doubt that the work of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, made a big difference there. Great credit must be given to it.
I recall that, when I was a Wales Office Minister, when matters affecting Welsh legislation came before Parliament, I often exchanged letters with the relevant Assembly Minister. That exchange would then be made public without in any way interfering with the Assembly’s right to make secondary legislation. Very often, those letters and that information enabled people in this place to better understand what would be done with the legislation when the relevant powers were passed to Cardiff. I commend that approach. I cannot think of anything better, but if anyone else can, I hope that they will pursue it, because that is the right way to pursue such matters. At the end of the day, however, we must leave the Assembly with the right to make secondary legislation.
The Assembly, as an institution, will demonstrate its maturity when all its Members—not just some of them—and some of its Ministers too, get a little less worked up about the kind of scrutiny in which we in this place, under our constitutional settlement, are rightly allowed to participate. It makes for better legislation, and I believe that we are proving that tonight.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. I, too, wish to send my heartfelt sympathies to Carwyn Jones on the loss of his mother. At the end of an extraordinary few weeks in the history of Wales, I also offer a tribute to the retiring First Minister, who has had an extraordinary 10 years. To stand down at the end of 10 years from the most important job in Wales and to be garlanded with such popularity—by 65 to 75 per cent. of the nation—is phenomenal. It does not happen very often. A member of my party who witnessed the tributes to this great giant of the nation was surprised to see that 10 minutes later he was queuing in the cafeteria for a cup of tea with Rhodri Morgan standing next to him. It does not happen that way in Westminster—it seems to be the Welsh way—but it might explain why Rhodri was so important.
At the moment, we have rare, if not unique, unity in Wales on so many issues. We have had a year of a stable and strong coalition Government, who have not been quarrelling constantly. That has been beneficial to Wales. We have seen in the debate tonight this extraordinary unity. We all know that in the past there have been divisions between us. I served with great pride on Gwent county council with my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), although we were not unanimous then.
I would like to pay tribute to the Welsh language and what it has meant to my life. It has enriched it extraordinarily. I remember living with my family and having to be told that I lived in Wales. My mother explained to me that, although everyone to whom we spoke had Irish accents, we were in fact Welsh because we were born in Wales. We were just Welsh—not proper Welsh, like the people in north Wales, or real Welsh, like the people who speak with Welsh accents, but we were certainly Welsh.
I had the great luck that few had at the time of having an inspiring Welsh teacher who taught me the glorious, majestic poetry of Robert Williams Parry and T. Gwynn Jones. I remember that to this day. All my life, the language has been a source of great pleasure, right up to today, when I drive up the motorway to the sounds of Heather Jones singing “Mae Hiraeth yn fy Nghalon”. There are many other great facets to modern Welsh, a language that in 1962 we all feared would not last until the end of the century, after the famous speech by Saunders Lewis, “Tynged yr Iaith”. He said that the language was in such a steep decline that it could not survive to the year 2000. Welsh is now flourishing in a way that none of us believed possible.
I was involved in union work, but I came into politics because of the decision by the school teaching my eight-year-old daughter that the first Welsh song that she would ever learn would be the Welsh national anthem, but taught in English, which seems an affront too far. I got involved with the movement for Welsh-language schools in Gwent, which have survived and prospered magnificently. Every one of them has been a huge success. What a joy it is now to go into every school in my constituency, where, when I was young, people would have been uncertain whether they were in England or Wales. The county’s motto was “Faithful to both”, which meant faithful towards England and Wales. Now it means faithful to both north Wales and south Wales, which is an entirely different meaning altogether.
It is a matter of some rejoicing for us as a nation that we have reached this point, where we have this treasure of the language, which has come to us down the centuries. It is a language that existed with sophisticated literature long before the English language existed, and it continues to prosper. Last week we had a saturnalia in Caerleon in my constituency—we go back a bit further than the Christian tradition—to celebrate the Roman Christmas. It is fascinating to recall that if one was attending a saturnalia in Caerleon 2,000 years ago, the children would have been speaking two languages: Welsh and Latin. Welsh is the language that survives on the lips of the children today—we do not hear a lot of people speaking Latin these days. That is a matter of great pride for us as a nation.
This evening’s debate is a historical turning point, in that we are going forward in harmony as a nation, united and at peace with ourselves, to build a much stronger Wales and see our own Parliament on the soil of our country—something that we have not had in any reasonable form for centuries—strong, stable and certain to have a great future as an independent Parliament.
It is clear from the contributions of hon. Members from all parts of the House that there is an immense fund of good will towards the Welsh language, and so should there be. As my noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy observed in another place, the language is a highly valued part not only of Welsh heritage, but of British heritage, and it should be cherished as such. Indeed, the fondness of Welsh people toward their language was clearly expressed just now by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn).
While mentioning my noble Friend Lord Roberts, I feel it appropriate again to pay tribute to the efforts that he, probably more than any other living individual, has made to help secure the status of Welsh as a vibrant modern language, spoken by increasing numbers of people—and particularly young people—in the Principality, as the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) and for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said. It was Lord Roberts who piloted the Welsh Language Act 1993 through Parliament. He has steadfastly championed the cause of the language at every available opportunity. All of us in the House owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude.
The wisdom that Lord Roberts showed in 1993 is just as relevant today. If people are to be encouraged to use the Welsh language, it should be done, so far as possible, on a voluntary basis. This is, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) pointed out, a highly sensitive issue. We cannot take a broad-brush approach. We have to take account of different sensitivities and the different traditions of various parts of Wales.
I agree with the right hon. and hon. Members who have said that compulsion should be avoided at all costs. However, our concern is that the order envisages an element of compulsion. The hon. Member for Caernarfon not only recognised that but—I am sad to say this, because he is a nice man—appeared to rejoice in it. I have to warn the House that nothing is more likely to breed resentment than compulsion in Welsh language legislation. That is one step away from the politicisation of the language, and I am sure that almost everyone in this Chamber would wish to avoid that.
The order in its current form is, however, a significant improvement on the original draft, most particularly in its introduction of a reasonableness and proportionality test. This is to the credit of the work of the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis). It was not an easy task to achieve consensus, but achieve it we did, and the draft LCO is all the better for that.
I also take heart from the memorandum supplied by the Welsh Assembly Government, which states:
“It is the Welsh Assembly Government’s policy that subsequent Measures should not impose duties on organisations unless there is a clear public benefit in doing so. It is not the intention to place disproportionate obligations on any organisation.”
I, for one, am willing to take them at their word, and I hope that they will be as good as their word.
However, we are concerned that Measures might be introduced by the Welsh Assembly Government that set up an unwieldy bureaucracy to oversee the language and to establish appeals and enforcement procedures, all of which will cost money at a difficult economic time, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out. More importantly, such Measures might militate against the unselfconscious use of both Welsh and English that we all want to see.
We still have reservations about the order, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them. We do not know where the seemingly arbitrary figure of £400,000 has come from. We are concerned that professional supervisory bodies, many of whom may have limited resources or few members in Wales, could be subject to a requirement to produce a Welsh language scheme. We are utterly mystified as to why the Bank of England is included in the ambit of the order. I hope that the Minister can offer an explanation for that point, if for no other. We are concerned that royal chartered bodies are still arbitrarily included, although the number of categories of such bodies has, thankfully, been reduced. We are particularly troubled that post office services are still included, as that could act as a deterrent to prospective purchasers of sub-post offices in Wales. We are also concerned that niche market telecommunications, gas, electricity and water suppliers could be deterred from entering the Welsh market, which could have adverse consequences for Welsh consumers.
In summary, we are worried that, unless the powers conferred by this LCO are used judiciously and sensitively by the Welsh Assembly Government, they will have the potential to undo all the good that has been done by the Welsh Language Act 1993. They could create non-tariff barriers to companies wishing to establish themselves in Wales, and disadvantage Walsh consumers. They could be perceived as heavy-handed and bureaucratic. If the powers are not judiciously applied, they might be resented.
We must rely on the good will and good sense of the Welsh Assembly Government in this regard. We will not oppose the making of this order, but we will be looking very carefully at what the Assembly Government do with the powers conferred upon them. We urge them to proceed cautiously and sensitively. Indeed, in the medium term, they could do a lot worse than leave the current arrangements undisturbed.
I shall begin by expressing my condolences to the First Minister on his sad bereavement today, as other hon. Members have done.
We have had a good debate tonight on the Welsh language and on this Welsh language competence order. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who as Secretary of State for Wales began the process of consultation that has taken us in a very constructive way to where we are today. I believe that the consultation he began has led to the creation of a genuine consensus on the best way forward for promoting and enhancing the Welsh language. That consensus extends, I believe, not only to both Houses of Parliament, but to the Welsh Assembly and the people of Wales. One of the lessons of recent history is that if we are actively and positively to promote the Welsh language we must have a consensual approach, so that all the people of Wales are taken with us. The Welsh language is the language of all the people of Wales—English speakers as well as Welsh speakers.
In common with other Members, I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), and to the excellent work that the Committee has done. The stipulations of reasonableness and proportionality are extremely important in respect of this LCO. I believe that the inclusion of those two tests makes this LCO that much the stronger.
A number of Members have greatly praised the process as it has been conducted and have warmly supported the provisions in the LCO. A number of reservations have, however, been expressed—rather too strongly for my liking. It is rather unfortunate that the reservations were expressed in the way they were, but some legitimate questions have been raised. Let me briefly refer to some of them.
The future of the Welsh Language Board was raised, and I believe that is very much a question for the Welsh Assembly Government. It will be for them to decide on its future, as they are empowered to decide.
A number of Members, particularly the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), raised the issue of the potential burden on business, which was echoed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). One of the most important facets of this process has been the very positive engagement with the business community. Understandably, concerns have been expressed, but many of them have been sufficiently addressed and allayed. It is very significant that the CBI, for example, has warmly welcomed the introduction of reasonableness and proportionality in the LCO. That is important in itself, but it is also indicative of wider support and an acceptance that what we have before us is the best way forward for the Welsh language.
That does not imply, of course, that a voluntary approach towards enhancing the Welsh language is to be put to one side—quite the opposite. This legislative framework before us will provide a powerful stimulus to an increasing voluntary acceptance of the Welsh language in Wales. My right hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Torfaen made the valid point that the education system in Wales is in many ways still the key to promoting the Welsh language, ensuring that it is a language for young people and in tune with the needs of modern Wales.
Issues were raised about the appeals process, which is again very much in the hands of the Welsh Assembly Government, whose responsibility it will be, of course, to fund any appeals mechanism that requires funding. I also stress that a regulatory impact assessment will be made of any Measures introduced by the Welsh Assembly Government as a consequence of this LCO. That is firmly embedded in the order, and it was fully recognised as well as warmly welcomed in the debates and the constructive discussions that we had with the Welsh Assembly Government.
Let me refer briefly to two other points. First, there is a stipulation threshold of £400,000, so that certain large organisations such as the National Botanic Garden of Wales, are brought within the ambit of the LCO. The Bank of England is mentioned specifically because of the reference in the 1993 Act to the need for a Welsh language scheme involving it. Lord Roberts of Conwy—Wyn Roberts—is to be congratulated on having the foresight to introduce that stipulation in the Act.
May I conclude by saying—
One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Welsh Language) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 10 November, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
Business without Debate
Electoral Commission
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order 118(6) and Order, 7 December),
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Anthony Hugh Burton Hobman as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 19 January 2010 for the period ending on 31 December 2013. —(Mark Tami.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House
Resolved,
That, in respect of the Video Recordings Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. —(Mark Tami.)
Sittings of the House
Motion made,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
In paragraph (4) the word ‘eight’ shall be substituted for the word ‘thirteen’ in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word ‘fifth’ shall be substituted for the word ‘eighth’ in line 44;
(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
In paragraph (2) the word ‘fifth’ shall be substituted for the word ‘eighth’ in line 21; and
(3) Private Members’ Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May. —( Mark Tami.)
Object.
Petitions
Badman Report (Somerton and Frome)
I wish to present a petition whose terms are probably fairly well known to the House by now, as they have been read out a number of times. It concerns the Badman report. I am indebted to my constituent Kate Charlesworth and several of her colleagues who came to see me some weeks ago to discuss the concern that they felt, as home educators, about what was proposed, and exchanged information with me. They collected the signatures on the petition from people in my constituency. There are also a few signatures from people in the neighbouring Wansdyke constituency.
The petition reads as follows:
The Petition of persons resident in the Somerton and Frome parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people’s homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000526]
Badman Report (North Southwark and Bermondsey)
I, too, wish to present a petition on the subject of the Badman report and home education. It was organised by the Stockman family, who live in Rotherhithe, and has been signed by 46 constituents of mine and by people living elsewhere in south-east London or in east London. It follows the terms of the petition read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and those read out by other Members previously. It asks the Government to respond positively to the strong case that the petitioners make for home education to be permitted in the way that they desire, as opposed to the way that the Government seem to intend to pursue.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the parliamentary constituency of North Southwark and Bermondsey,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000566]
Badman Report (Vale of York)
I wish to present a petition in similar terms, in the names of Mr. and Mrs. McCallum and others residing in the Vale of York. I am a great supporter of home education, and I pay tribute to the home educators. We are fortunate enough to have a particularly good local education authority in North Yorkshire, but I agree with the concerns raised by the petitioners—that the Badman review was rushed, that its conclusions did not pay regard to the evidence, and that it confers undue powers of inspection—and I hope that the Government will reconsider.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Vale of York parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000651]
Climate Change
I rise to present a petition passed to me by Durham students union and the People & Planet society, on behalf of 600 students who are pressing the Government and the international community to come to a fair and strong agreement on tackling climate change at Copenhagen.
The petitioners
request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with other countries in the United Nations to ensure: that the needs of the world’s poorest people are at the heart of a new global climate change deal; that rich countries cut their emissions first; that rich countries provide the money and technology needed for developing countries to adapt to changing climates; and that less developed countries also invest in their most vulnerable communities to help them adapt to climate change.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons concerned about climate change,
Declares that, from an historical point of view, the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is one of the most significant gatherings ever; that the world has precious little time to reach an agreement which will secure the future habitability of the planet; that climate change hits poor people first and worst as they face increasingly unpredictable weather, hunger and disease; further declares that this is a massive injustice because the poorest people are the least responsible for causing climate change and have the least resources to cope; further declares that at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference the world community will try to agree a solution to the gravest threat it has ever faced, that of global warming; further declares that the petitioners are doing what they can to reduce their personal contribution to global warming, but know that the world needs a fair and strong international climate change agreement.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with other countries in the United Nations to ensure: that the needs of the world’s poorest people are at the heart of a new global climate change deal; that rich countries cut their emissions first; that rich countries provide the money and technology needed for developing countries to adapt to changing climates; and that less developed countries also invest in their most vulnerable communities to help them adapt to climate change.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000639]
Malta Cross/Africa Star
I rise to present a petition with more than 1,000 signatures, on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Tom and Mrs. Margaret Beswarick, among others.
The petition states:
The Petition of the George Cross Island Association North West Branch and others,
Declares that a small Maltese Cross should be issued by the British Government to be worn with the Africa Star, for personnel involved with the defence of Malta, in recognition of the valiant efforts of our former servicemen and the people of Malta.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to issue a small Maltese Cross to be pinned to the Africa Star.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000638]
Badman Report (Colchester)
I rise to present a petition in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Crannis and 46 other constituents of mine on the Badman report. I will not read out the entire petition, as that has been done many times before, but they are
concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people’s homes for local authority officials.
The petitioners therefore request that the
existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of persons resident in the Colchester parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people’s homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000645]
Health Care Centre (Burnage)
I rise to submit a petition on behalf of more than 500 residents, including my constituent Jean Quinn of Avon road, who are opposed to the planned closure of Burnage walk-in centre. I fully support the petition and was disappointed that the Prime Minister and local Labour party have failed to support the campaign to save it.
The petition states:
The Petition of persons concerned at plans to suspend walk-in services at Burnage Healthcare Centre in Burnage, Manchester
Declares that NHS Manchester is currently considering plans to suspend walk-in services at Burnage Healthcare Centre in Burnage, Manchester; notes that this is a service that is much valued and well used by the local community: declares that the Petitioners are concerned that a decision to suspend walk-in services was made without public consultation
Further declares that the petitioners are concerned by the impact that the suspension of services would have on the local community, particularly the elderly: that the Petitioners believe that a decision to proceed with the suspension would be misguided; and that the Petitioners believe that such a decision would be purely for financial reasons rather than being based on healthcare imperatives
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to do all in its power to persuade NHS Manchester to abandon plans to suspend walk-in services at Burnage Healthcare Centre and allow staff at the centre to continue their valuable work free from the threat of suspension
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000649]
Badman Report (Ceredigion)
I should like to present a petition of 70 residents from the Ceredigion constituency, which has been organised by the Clarke family of Drefach, on the Badman report. Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not refer to the report as that has been done many times.
Following is the full text of the petition.
[The Petition of persons resident in the Ceredigion parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000644]
Badman Report (Blaydon)
I, too, wish to present a petition on the Badman report, on behalf of Julie Taylor and others from the Blaydon constituency who wish to express the genuine concerns about the report. They specifically request the Secretary of State to withdraw or not bring forward the various measures set out in the report. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition tonight.
Following is the full text of the petition.
[The Petition of persons resident in the Blaydon parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000643]
Badman Report (Scarborough and Whitby)
I, too, rise to present a petition on the Badman report, which has been signed by 42 of my constituents in the same terms as were so ably read out by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
Following is the full text of the petition.
[The Petition of persons resident in Scarborough and Whitby parliamentary constituency,
Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P000641]
Dr Ghassemlou
Some 5,300 people signed this petition, many of whom come from the UK Kurdish community. The Kurds are a proud and wonderful people, who have suffered oppression and betrayal over many years. They seek justice and a right to remind us of the atrocities, lest they ever be repeated.
The petition states:
The Petition of member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in the UK and others,
Declares that twenty years after their deaths the case of Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, the General-Secretary of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, Abdullah Ghaderi-Azar and Fadhil Rassoul has never been resolved, notes that they travelled to Vienna, on July 13, 1989 to negotiate a peaceful solution and obtain political rights for the Kurdish nation, with the appointed Iranian representatives, but that all three were killed during the meeting
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the EU to press the government of Austria to allow an independent judicial enquiry into these deaths and to secure a just and true resolution to this case
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000648]
London City Airport
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Tami.)
I am grateful for the opportunity, even at this late hour tonight, to highlight my concerns and those of my constituents about the impact of flight noise, and the increase in the number of flights, from London City airport. It is also a pleasure to debate again with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), on a transport-related matter and I look forward to hearing his response in due course.
In the past 10 years, the number of air transport movements at London City airport has doubled, from just under 21,000 aircraft departures in 1999 to some 42,000 departures in 2008. We are about to see a further significant shift in the use of the airport. The London borough of Newham has now granted the airport permission to increase the number of flight movements by 50 per cent. The flights permission would increase from 80,000 to 120,000 movements a year. London City airport forecasts that it will handle up to 3.9 million passengers by 2010, and there are long-term plans to accommodate up to 8 million passengers by 2030. That potentially significant change in the scale and nature of the operations at the airport has gone largely unnoticed by many people.
This is not simply about the number of landings and departures; it is also about the flight paths that the aircraft will take. Last year, NATS consulted on wide-ranging proposals for the busy airspace above the south-east of England known as terminal control north. The plans covered all London airports, with modifications to landing and departure routings and holding points. In the case of London City airport, one of the proposed changes was to alter the northerly departure routing. Instead of aircraft taking a sharp northerly turn almost immediately after take-off and, thus, over Woodford and Chingford, they were instead intended to take a flight path to the north-east over my constituency in Hornchurch.
In September 2008, I received a letter from the head of external communications at NATS stating that there would be a longer time period for consideration of the consultation, as further options were being considered, including in respect of London City departures over north London. It stated that
“work is ongoing and further design options and suggestions are being evaluated”,
adding that
“we have not set a timetable for the next steps on the TCN proposal.”
In response to a further inquiry from me about the nature of the revised options being considered for London City, I received a letter on 2 December 2008 stating that a number of options for the wider terminal control north area were being considered and that
“there may well be a requirement for further consultation on any proposals that are brought forward, should they be significantly different to those on which we have already consulted.”
It was therefore with some shock and surprise that I discovered several months after the event that on 8 January this year NATS submitted a formal airspace change proposal to the Civil Aviation Authority to alter the London City airport standard instrument departure routes, including the change to route more aircraft over my constituency. Ian Hall, the director of operations for NATS, was quoted in the accompanying press release as saying:
“These changes to the turn were proposed in the TCN consultation and are necessary to formalise the departure procedures for all aircraft using London City and will be an added safety benefit. It is a change we can achieve quickly and the CAA is keen that we do so.”
I was subsequently informed in a letter from NATS that the CAA required it to expedite an airspace change proposal and that is self-evident when one reads the CAA decision letter of 20 February 2009. The letter stated that the changes were deemed by the CAA to be necessary to accommodate an increase in category C aircraft using the airport rather than following the STOLport configuration—or short take-off and landing airport configuration—that had originally been envisaged. In his decision letter, the then director of airspace policy at the CAA, John Arscott, stated that:
“As part of the TC North development briefings, my head of Controlled Airspace advised NATS that a re-design of conventional LCY SIDs”—
that is, London City standard instrument departures—
“to meet CAT C design criteria was required at the earliest opportunity and it was subsequently agreed that these re-designed SIDs should be incorporated within the TC North development project.”
He went on to say:
“Following on from the TC North consultation, with the ongoing NATS evaluation of the TC North consultation feedback and a potential lengthy delay to eventual implementation, I decided that the LCY SID changes to bring conventional procedures up to CAT C design criteria could not be delayed any further; therefore, NATS was requested to submit a change proposal to bring the SID designs up to CAA and ICAO CAT C design requirements at the earliest opportunity.”
It is interesting to note that that was virtually the last decision Mr. Arscott took as his term of office came to an end a week later on 1 March 2009.
In essence the terminal control north consultation as far as London City was concerned was potentially meaningless—one could say that it was a sham. The CAA had predetermined that change was necessary. I find that unacceptable and believe that I—along with my constituents—was given a completely false impression when the TCN consultation was initiated. The changes were brought into effect in May and are already starting to have an impact.
Both easterly and westerly departures from London City airport to the north that previously took a sharp turn following take-off are now being directed over my constituency following a similar track to the initial route adopted for north-easterly and southerly departures from the airport. Based on the 2009 usage rates published in the original TCN consultation, that will in future result in a near 50 per cent. increase in the number of departing aircraft overhead in my constituency from London City airport.
Although the CAA might have requirements to bring London City operations into compliance with CAA and International Civil Aviation Organisation design criteria for category C departures, that does not mean that my constituents should be forced to bear the brunt of the noise and environmental impact. Aircraft will be passing overhead at between 2,000 and 3,000 feet with a typical noise level of 57 to 72 dB and potentially up to 77 dB for BAE 146 or RJ aircraft. The CAA decision letter accepts that residents will experience additional aircraft noise. Having read that letter, I am left with the impression that the TCN proposals, so far as they affected London City, were a done deal, and that the consultation undertaken was effectively meaningless.
This comes on top of the Newham council decision to approve an increase in the number of flight movements at London City by 50 per cent.—from 80,000 movements to 120,000. The combined impact of the changes to the London City departure routings and the proposed increase in flights would, in essence, lead to a doubling of the number of departing aircraft over my Hornchurch constituency. That will have a noticeable and significant impact on environmental amenity for my constituents. The double-whammy effect was never communicated or consulted on; again, I find that utterly unacceptable.
It is not just me, however. Significant questions are now being raised by neighbouring boroughs about the nature of the consultation conducted by the London borough of Newham in relation to approving the increase in flight movements. The London borough of Redbridge passed an uncontested resolution in November condemning the failure to consult it on the expansion of London City airport, and opposing further expansion at the airport or changes to the flight paths or modes of operation at the airport that would result in an increase in aircraft noise suffered by local residents. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) was in the Chamber, he would want to refer to that resolution because he has taken a close interest in the issue. However, it is not just Redbridge. I understand that motions in similar terms have also been approved by the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest.
London City airport is consulting on its draft strategic noise action plan. The draft plan will have to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport early next year for consideration before formal adoption under the European environmental noise directive. I urge the Secretary of State not to accept the plan unless the significant complaints and concerns that I have raised in the debate have been properly addressed, particularly the significant impact that residents in east and north-east London will suffer due to departing aircraft from London City as a consequence of the flight routing changes. There should be a consideration of changes to routings, when appropriate, and discussions with both the CAA and NATS, when necessary, so that my constituents are not forced to bear the brunt of what I consider to be a fundamentally flawed notification and consultation procedure on two fronts.
Will the Minister make urgent representations to both the CAA and NATS about the nature of their general approach to consultation? The case raises serious and significant issues, and if their approach is simply to go through the motions by carrying out consultation on a done deal, that is utterly acceptable.
I also urge the Minister to instruct NATS and the CAA to go back to the drawing board, reassess the departure routings from London City, and come back with revised proposals as part of the next round of consultation under the TCN proposals. It is worth making the point that London City was specifically stripped out of the TCN. All the other proposals are still subject to further consideration and public consultation. Regardless of what the CAA might say, it is odd that London City was stripped out in such a way when everyone was under the impression that the TCN proposals were still being considered and would be the subject of further consultation.
Given the circumstances of such a significant change and its combined effect with the general increase in flight movements, and the impact that that will have on areas such as Hornchurch, I believe that the regulators have a duty to look again at the damaging proposals that are being fast-tracked through. While there might be arguments for increasing London City’s capacity, they need to be balanced against the impact of additional disruption due to noise. I object that my constituents will bear the brunt of the environmental downside without any clear upside, that they are told that they have a voice in a consultation when they are given only a partial picture of the true scale of changes and that, in any event, their views would apparently simply be regarded as irrelevant.
In Hornchurch, we are lucky to have the benefit of significant environmental amenities. We have a significant amount of green space, with a number of large parks and sites of significant scientific interest. Their enjoyment will be adversely affected by these changes.
I therefore urge the Minister to use his influence to ensure that those agencies with responsibility for the planning of our flight paths look again at the design of the northerly routings from London City airport. They should look again at the serious environmental impact of their decisions, and be held properly accountable for their actions to my constituents and the residents of other affected areas.
At the outset, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) on securing this debate? I am delighted to face him again and to have a further discussion on transport issues.
Our commitment to sustaining economic growth and protecting the environment is at the very heart of the Department’s aviation policy-making process. With specific regard to smaller airports such as London City airport, the Government’s 2003 White Paper “The Future of Air Transport” noted that regional and local planning authorities
“should take account of the benefits that development at the smaller airports could provide, and consider policies which facilitate the delivery of growth”
and opportunities at these airports. However, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will agree that hard decisions have to be taken to strike a balance between tackling the environmental challenges, enabling people to fly and allowing the industry to compete internationally. Tensions will always arise in such matters, of course, but it is about getting the balance right.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues regarding recent changes at London City airport and I am keen to deal with them. I shall begin with Newham council’s decision to grant planning permission for London City airport to increase by some 50 per cent. the total number of air traffic transport movements from 80,000 to 120,000 per year, and the impact that that might have on local residents.
The decision to grant that planning consent was entirely a matter for the London borough of Newham. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who knows the position of his own Front-Bench team when it comes to the decision-making process at local level, will agree with that. Expansion of the airport is consistent with the Government’s view that there is considerable potential for airports like London City to grow, and the airport is well placed to serve a niche business market.
It is important for the Minister to understand the Newham council decision, as one concern was whether it consulted properly with all the surrounding councils and all the residents who might be affected by the application. Will he consider that in the context of guidance given to planning authorities with regard to sensitive and significant applications such as this one? People who would have been affected found out about it only very late in the day, with the result that their ability to comment and provide objections was very limited.
I was just about to come to that issue. A judicial review launched by the campaign group “Fight the Flights” is currently looking into whether there was consultation with the neighbouring boroughs of Redbridge and Waltham Forest, and their residents. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would be wrong for me to comment further, other than to say that the guidance as to the routes that should be taken is clear. Obviously, however, the judicial review will make its own decisions, and we wait to see what happens.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of standard instrument departure—SID—routes from the airport, which were introduced in May this year. These changes were brought about in order to bring London City airport’s departure profiles up to the international design standards required for the mix of aircraft types that currently operate to and from the airport. Our airport operations have very high safety records, which is due in part to the hard work of all those responsible for maintaining that safety record and following the right profiles.
When the airport was first opened, the departure routings were designed to accommodate short take-off and landing operations. At that time the aircraft being flown from the airport were predominantly turboprops, which operated within certain departure speed categories, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. Over time the aircraft operating from the airport have changed to more modern jets that require faster departure speeds. Accordingly, the Civil Aviation Authority instructed NATS, the air navigation service provider, to consider changes to the London City SIDs to reflect the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s departure design standards for the aircraft types that are operating from the airport.
In practice, the revised SIDs have merely formalised the departure tracks that were already being flown by about 60 per cent. of the airport’s traffic. These changes were undertaken independently of the planning decision of Newham council and implemented in accordance with the independent airspace change process. The approval of the Secretary of State was not required in order to implement the changes. Guidance on the airspace change process is readily available on the CAA’s website, which I looked at earlier today.
It might be helpful if I explain briefly the procedure for making changes to airspace in the UK. Airspace planning and regulation is the responsibility of the independent regulator, the CAA. The process for making changes to airspace is governed by the CAA’s airspace change process. A change sponsor, in this case NATS, is responsible for developing and consulting on a proposal for an airspace change, ensuring that it satisfies and/or enhances safety standards, improves capacity and mitigates, as far as is practical, any environmental impacts in line with the Department’s environmental guidance to the CAA.
Informed by the consultation, the airspace change sponsor must submit its proposal to the CAA. It is the CAA that then assesses the formal proposal against the regulatory requirements, including environmental objectives, which are clearly a concern to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and either approves or rejects the proposal. If the CAA considers that a proposal could have a detrimental effect on the environment, it is required to advise the Secretary of State for Transport. It must refrain from making the airspace change without first securing his approval.
Therefore, airspace changes are made only where it is clear, after consultation, that an overall environmental benefit will accrue or where the airspace management considerations and the overriding need for safety allow no practical alternative.
I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way. As I understand it, he has said that the CAA makes the decision whether there is an environmental aspect that should be referred to the Secretary of State. The CAA appears to be the judge and the decision maker on that. Is there any route whereby the Secretary of State could call in for consideration a proposed change in routing? It seems strange that the CAA can, in effect, require NATS to implement a change and decide on the environmental aspects itself.
As I have indicated, the Secretary of State vests that power in the independent regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, but it has to make those considerations in conjunction with the guidance—particularly on the environmental side—that is laid out in conjunction with the Government’s policy.
I shall now turn specifically to the environmental impact of the recent changes to London City airport. I recognise that the levels of aircraft noise and air quality, and the visual impact on the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, will of course be of concern. I understand that point, and that is why I said right at the beginning of my remarks that getting the balance right is a judgment that has to be made.
The CAA’s guidance on the airspace change process includes substantive guidance on a range of environmental requirements, including noise, air quality, tranquillity and visual intrusion. With regard to noise issues at London City airport, the hon. Gentleman will recall from my answer to his recent parliamentary question that responsibility for monitoring noise levels of aircraft at the airport falls to the airport operator. There are no statutory governmental noise controls like those that apply to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. However, under the terms of local monitoring agreements with the London borough of Newham, London City is required to produce annual noise contours.
Given that the airport is in the city centre and in close proximity to residential areas, it imposes stringent noise control measures that are designed to mitigate its local environmental impact. Those measures incorporate strict restrictions on opening hours, including a ban on night flights. In addition, the airport produces annual contours, whereby the noise levels at the airport are monitored by a noise and track-keeping system. Further, London City airport’s noise insulation scheme has the lowest trigger of any airport in the UK. In developing an insulation scheme to reflect the local circumstance, the airport, I am encouraged to note, is able to set criteria so that properties within the 57 dBA contour can be considered for insulation. The hon. Gentleman will know that that goes beyond the recommended level of 66 dBA in the air transport White Paper.
In terms of noise, there are future initiatives and two key developments. The first relates to the proposed expansion of the airport. The planning conditions imposed as part of Newham borough council’s planning consent requires the airport to develop an improved noise monitoring and mitigation strategy. That is expected to include the replacement of the existing noise and track-keeping system and improvements to the noise insulation schemes.
The second initiative relates to the requirement for the airport to prepare a strategic noise action plan under the European environmental noise directive. Under the terms of that directive, the airport is required to develop a draft action plan in consultation with the local community. The airport is conducting a public consultation on its draft noise action plan, and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out on his website, the closing date is 15 January. He encourages everyone to participate in it, and that is absolutely commendable.
The consultation process is a valuable opportunity for the airport to work closely with its neighbouring communities in developing control measures that will apply over the next five years. The neighbouring communities are clearly important. Once the airport has completed its consultation and considered the responses, it will be required to submit the final draft plan to the Government so that it can be considered for formal adoption under the directive.
The airport is very aware of its local impact and seeks to ensure that local people see the benefit of living near an airport. The growth of the airport has encouraged businesses, investors and developers to locate in east London, bringing new services and facilities to the area.
Let me turn finally to TC north. TC north is one of the most complex pieces of airspace in the world, with routes in and out of the major airports of Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and London City. I must stress that the TC north proposals are not associated with, and do not assume, future development at Heathrow, Stansted or any other airport. As the hon. Gentleman said, the London City airport SID proposals originally formed part of the TC north consultation on a package of measures designed to reduce delay, maintain safety and improve environmental performance. That consultation on TC north was the largest of its kind undertaken; the population in the region affected is just under 13 million.
NATS directly consulted over 3,000 primary stakeholders, including MPs, county, borough, district and parish councils, environmental organisations and chambers of commerce. Before the launch of the consultation, NATS arranged briefings for local MPs and national and regional media. In response to concerns that there was not enough time to consider the details of the proposals, NATS extended the consultation period by four weeks, giving a full 17-week consultation period. Following that, NATS decided to review the TC north design options further. However, any revised designs for the TC north region are unlikely to be ready for consultation before autumn next year.
The CAA considered that further consultation on the London City airport SID proposals was not needed—
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).