| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gray: I am reminded of conversations I held with my right hon. Friend on these matters when I was his special adviser at the then Department of the Environment. Does he agree that, although he is correct to point out that environmental issues in general and air quality in particular are trans-boundary in nature and must be decided at a European level, many issues, such as the quality of our domestic drinking water, of our inland waterways and lakes and other UK environmental matters, should be for this place to decide? They are not matters for the EU.
Mr. Gummer: That would be all right if we could make the distinction, but we cannot. Water is water is water. If we are trying to establish EU standards, we have to acknowledge that their management involves everyone having the same standards.
There should be a minimum standard for drinking water across Europe. I want to be able to drink the water in Italy, because--I am happy to say--I am a member of the EU. I want the Italians to have the same minimum
standards as us. If my hon. Friend wants higher standards in Britain, I am all for that, but one of our great pleasures is that, at long last, we live in harmony with our European neighbours--on the day after Thanksgiving, we should give thanks for that--and can accept certain common standards. Why the blazes should we think that we can set up different standards for drinking water quality in Britain, just because we do not want common standards?
Mr. Gummer: Because I want Italians to be able to drink UK water--that seems perfectly reasonable. As we are citizens both of the EU and of this country, we should be able to benefit from the advantages of that citizenship. I knew that my remarks would stir up my hon. Friend. It might be thought that I do so purposely, but there we are.
As we are on the subject of water, I shall speak about flooding, on which serious issues must be addressed. There is concern that what is happening is caused by climate change. "Climate change" is the wrong description; it should be "climate disruption". "Climate change" suggests that we are moving from one climatic state to another. The most serious problem of global warming is that it makes extraordinary incidents much more likely--more storms and more hot periods will occur more regularly. All the evidence points to that.
By probing the icecap and using other techniques, we can look back over 400,000 years. There is no period in which the temperature has changed as fast as at present. That is serious. Even if we do not accept the overwhelming consensus of scientific advice, we must accept that the effect of such change is extraordinary, while keeping a sense of proportion.
Like my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, I believe that pollution has a considerable impact on global warming. That is only to be expected. A century ago, it took 100 years to produce a billion people; now, it takes 11 years. There are a lot of people on the planet and they produce a lot of pollution; it is hardly surprising that the atmosphere is affected. In the billions of worlds that we seem to have discovered, this is the only world--as far as we know--that can sustain life as we know it. Our world might be rather rare; as it is rare, it may be fragile, so we should be careful about that which sustains our life. The Environment Agency should take a more proactive role in reminding us of such matters. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is right to say that there should be a greater input from the agency so that the public is aware of current scientific views.
There are several local issues. We must be much tougher about building on flood plains. I cannot understand why the Government have not included in their famed project for the house-buying pack the direction that the buyer should receive a statement as to whether the house is in a flood plain or is liable to flood. I have grave doubts about this famous pack; people will depend on it when it is unreliable. However, if we are to have such packs, that point should be included--as indeed should a compulsory energy measurement, so that people know how much it will cost to keep the house warm. If the pack is to be of any use, those two matters could easily be included.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): Where did my right hon. Friend hear the news about the
house-buyers pack? I share his reservations, but I am not aware of any Government announcement on the subject--certainly none has been promised for today although the news has already hit the newspapers and other media. The matter is important and we have been awaiting the information for some time.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, but we have come to understand how the Government make their announcements. First, a little bit is dripped out, then a word here and a word there and we hear a little more. Then, there is a gradual growth of general consensus that the Government are going to say something--a rumbling is heard. Finally, when everyone knows about the matter--every newspaper has covered it, every commentator has remarked on it and I have written about it in Estates Gazette--it comes to the House of Commons. Hon. Members all know that we are the last people to hear--the announcements are made in advance and that is how we find out.
I warn you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Minister for Housing and Planning will soon ask to make a statement to the House on that matter, but no one will be in the Chamber because we shall all know about it already. The hon. Gentleman will say a word or two at the Dispatch Box and we shall be expected to hear it afresh--there are supposed to be gasps of "ooh" and "aah" on both sides of the House as the turgid rice pudding, which has long been out of the oven, is ladled out to the Chamber. However, I have given up trying to explain that flawed procedure; I simply accept that it will happen.
However, that is not the subject of our debate, and I shall be in trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I continue along that route. The Government will be extremely cross even though these antagonistic points are being made in an entirely friendly way.
The house-buyers pack could be well illuminated through the work of the Environment Agency. Why could there not be a system whereby people have to say whether the house they are selling is subject to flooding? We could have a grading system--from A to E, for example--for energy consumption. People might then do more to protect their houses. The system could also help home owners; they could be rewarded for work they had carried out--for example, double glazing or cavity wall insulation.
Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman worries rather more than is necessary. As I understand the matter, the Environment Agency will, from the beginning of December, put maps of all flood plains on its web page, so the information will be available. The problem will be convincing people that they need to consult it. Of course, houses built on flood plains or at risk can be adequately protected, but the onus will be on the seller to demonstrate that.
Mr. Gummer: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. However, my knowledge of house purchase suggests that it will take some time to encourage people to rush to the web page of the Environment Agency. I want to make the process as simple as possible.
To finish my comments on planning, I shall refer to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said about agriculture. I am not sure that any of us has an answer,
but one has to admit that the change in agricultural practices has had the effect that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For example, in the village of Blythburgh in my constituency, the rather curious belief that pigs like being in the open air has had the effect that they are grazed and kept in a 100-acre field. Of course the effect that pigs have on the ground is wholly different from that of cropping. The water now runs off sharply into a village that has never before suffered from flooding, and 14 or 16 houses that previously were not subject to flooding are now regularly flooded because of a mixture of increased rainfall--the effect of global warming--the particular increase in rainfall this year, which might be a cyclical effect, and the fact that the water runs straight off without any protection.I commented on the welfare of pigs because, in their natural state, they live in forests, where they are protected from the heat and cold. Pigs cannot sweat. I sometimes wonder whether there is a great welfare advantage in the proposals of those who live in towns. Very often, they have no real understanding of the nature of the animals that they are trying to protect, as people discover when they see the number of chickens that are pecked to death in some of the welfare arrangements that are made for them, but that is another issue.
The fact is that keeping pigs in fields changes the nature of the land and increases the run-off significantly. Frankly, we shall have to reconsider that. It is no good the Minister having a questioning look on his face. In a rotational system whereby pigs are on land for three years and off it for three, there is no doubt that flooding occurs in the three years when the pigs are on the land, not when the land is cropped. There is no argument about that, and we must consider how to protect people from its effects.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I do not necessarily completely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but there are welfare and, indeed, cost advantages to outdoor pig systems, and the kind of land that the pigs are kept on is the key. Many pigs are kept on well-drained land, but such problems may occur on heavier land. However, those problems can be tackled by a system of land rotation involving the outdoor units.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |