Flooding

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Wales met the First Minister this morning to discuss some of these issues. As the hon. Gentleman will know, when it comes to funding matters and the Barnett formula in particular, other Departments will also have an interest.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is, of course, wrong to build in flood risk areas, yet just this morning I took photographs—which I will send to my right hon. Friend later—of an industrial digger actually in water, preparing the land for house building. Permission had been given not by the local authority, but by a previous Secretary of State on the advice of the inspector. This is madness. Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to stop this from happening?

[George Eustice]

I shall be more than happy to look at the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady, for whom I have enormous respect, is absolutely, 100%, totally right. Of course, it is up to this House to take that decision, but it is the case, whatever the position in Scotland—there can be no doubt that leaving without a deal would impose additional pressures on our precious Union—that there would be particular pressures on Northern Ireland if we leave without a deal on 29 March. As the hon. Lady points out, Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government for two years and, in the absence of the Stormont institutions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has introduced legislation and guidance to empower Northern Ireland’s civil servants, including the wholly estimable David Stirling, to continue to take decisions that are in the public interest. That arrangement is sustainable at the moment, but it is the sincere hope of myself, my colleagues in Government and, I believe, almost everyone across the House that we can restore the Northern Ireland Executive.

However, it is also clear that the current situation, with no Executive, would be difficult to sustain in the uniquely challenging context of a no-deal exit. If the House voted for no deal, we would have to start formal engagement with the Irish Government about further arrangements for providing strengthened decision making in the event of that outcome. That would include the real possibility of imposing a form of direct rule. That is a grave step, and experience shows us that it is hard to return from that step, and it would be especially difficult in the context of no deal.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s written statement today, which affords frictionless trade to the Republic of Ireland in terms of tariffs and there being no checks. If that can be the basis of no deal, why can it not be the basis of a deal?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary has issued a written statement, and it is the case that those provisions seek to minimise the consequences of no deal, but that is a temporary arrangement that could be open to legal challenge. To put it at its highest, it is a sub-optimal arrangement. It is a reflection of the hard work of the Northern Ireland civil service and my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary that we will do everything we can to minimise frictions and checks at the border in order to underpin the importance of both commerce and peace on the island of Ireland. However, it is emphatically not an arrangement that any of us can regard as genuinely sustainable or ideal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. She and I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for a number of years in the previous Parliament, so she has had a good grounding for the role that she takes on. The disease is costing us £100 million a year to fight. Doing nothing is not an option; we cannot put our head in the sand. That is why we need to pursue a broad comprehensive strategy. There is no evidence that any country in the world has managed to eradicate bovine TB without also tackling the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of the efficiency of the Rural Payments Agency in making basic farm payments on time.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We are expecting payments under the 2016 basic payment scheme to be considerably improved from last year’s. The Rural Payments Agency received more than 86,500 BPS applications for 2016. A record proportion of these claims—over 80%—were received online, which will enable the RPA to process them more quickly. The agency is currently focused on paying 90% of farmers by the end of December.

[Mr Robertson]

The Minister will be aware that this is not a new problem; it has been going on for a long time. Non-payment or even partial payment causes a great deal of hardship to farmers. Given that the situation has been going on for so long, what more can he do to make sure that there is an improvement in the forthcoming year?

[George Eustice]

As my hon. Friend knows, we had tremendous challenges in year 1. This was an incredibly complex common agricultural policy with all sorts of additional auditing and recording requirements, and which carried with it complexity and caused problems for payment agencies right across the European Union. On his question about what we are doing to improve things, now that we have gone through last year’s difficult task of getting all the data on to the computer system, and now that we have 80% of claimants applying online, we believe that we are in a good position for the coming year because all the difficult work was done last year.

Badger Culling/Bovine TB

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Monaghan]

I will come to the skin test shortly, but I think that there are more appropriate alternatives to it.

Returning to the point about public funds, it is instructive that the UK Government have never published the total costs of culling to the taxpayer or farmers. However, we know that the first two years of the two pilot culls in Somerset and Gloucester cost the taxpayer more than £14 million; that includes policing costs. That equates to £5,766 per badger killed and compares with an estimated cost of just under £700 per badger vaccinated in Wales.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Part of the trial culls is taking place in my constituency of Tewkesbury. This may be anecdotal, but the farmers there assure me that the incidence of bovine TB in those areas has been reduced since the trial culls began.

[Dr Monaghan]

It must be anecdotal because it certainly does not appear to be borne out by the scientific evidence.

In 2016, the UK Government admitted that the full costs of culling in 2015 had not been worked out but that policing costs alone for three areas were just under £2 million. The additional costs to farmers of the cull repercussions have never been released. In January this year, it was reported that the European Commission had provided the UK Government with half the Commission’s entire budget of €62 million to tackle bovine TB: €31m, then worth £23 million, went on just four programmes. That money, earmarked for dealing with and controlling TB in cattle, as opposed to badgers, is obviously now at risk because of Brexit. In sum, the UK Government’s current policy wastes an estimated £20 million per month and will generate a cost of approximately £2 billion to the taxpayer by the 2038 target. In addition, the UK Government no longer collect data on humaneness. One wonders why. What are the actual costs, Minister, and what do data show on humaneness?

I am arguing not that we should do nothing, but that the UK Government should abandon the TB skin test as the primary means of identifying infection and new herd breakdowns and should adopt modern methods and technologies to address this disease. Specifically, the UK Government should adopt gamma interferon tests—that is, blood testing—and robust systems of biosecurity. Combined with a co-ordinated badger vaccination policy in high-risk areas for bovine TB in England and restricted movement, that course of action would be a more progressive and intelligent option than the relatively crude skin testing and redundant killing of badgers and would realise results within months. It would also be more humane.

Flooding

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have said, the A591 is a national priority. For the first time ever we have Highways England working on it to ensure that that happens as soon as possible.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Although I am absolutely certain that most members of the Environment Agency did work very hard over the Christmas period, does the Secretary of State agree that institutionally the agency is often found lacking when it comes to flood prevention? It seems to lack dynamism, a cohesive approach and the determination to follow through with schemes, which the agency itself often identifies and which local people identify. In Tewkesbury we are well aware of the problems associated with flooding. I have to say that in my area there is a frustration about the operation of the Environment Agency.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I said, I was in Yorkshire on Boxing day. What I saw on the ground was some fantastic staff from the Environment Agency working around the clock to protect lives and save people. That is vital. Of course, any organisation needs to learn and get better at doing things. We have a new chief executive, Sir James Bevan, who was with me in Yorkshire on Boxing day. He is clear that he wants to put people in homes and that that is the agency’s No.1 priority. He is going to ensure that any issues raised by MPs are taken seriously and addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is spot on. There are 1 billion people hungry in today’s world and we are heading for a further increase in population of 2 billion. We should be aware that there is no unlimited cheap, safe food beyond our shores—it was the position of the last Government that there was—so we as a Government absolutely want to see domestic food production increase. We already have a huge task: 30% of the food eaten in this country is imported, but could be produced here.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the allocation of direct payments through pillar 1 of the CAP on common land.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

We published our assessment of the financial impact of changes to pillar 1 in chapter 7 of our response to the CAP reform consultation. We have held discussions with stakeholders about the future allocation of direct payments in respect of common land. The approach for the new CAP schemes, which begin in 2015, will take account of fairness, the need to minimise administrative burdens and the need to comply with the relevant European legislation.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will have gazed out on many occasions towards Cleeve common in my constituency. People are concerned that if there is a future prevention of claims for dual use, the funding will not be available to manage the common for purposes of wildlife conservation and indeed businesses. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when he comes to take decisions on these matters?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are aware of the problem of dual use, but it is absolutely our intention that those who have common land should be eligible for new environmental land management schemes, which we shall publish shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so the hon. Gentleman knows that I respect the protocols of devolution. We have regular discussions at ministerial and official level on matters agricultural. He is absolutely right, however, to raise the contrast between what has happened in Northern Ireland, where diseased badgers have not been removed, and the dramatic reduction in southern Ireland.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the development of vaccines for badgers and, indeed, cattle?

[Mr Paterson]

I raised the issue with Commissioner Borg on my first day back, a week last Monday. We are pressing on with the development of a cattle vaccine but, sadly, it will take some years: we have to develop a vaccine that is valid and works; we have to develop a DIVA test to differentiate between vaccinated cattle and diseased cattle; and we then have to get a legal process. I am afraid that that is going to take at least 10 years.

Flooding

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I will come on to the question of floodplains in a few moments, but the matter is on my radar. My colleague the Planning Minister will of course look at it with a completely open mind when the time comes.

Rightly, attention is now turning to how councils plan to develop and where they plan to build. Councils should take advice, where appropriate, from the Environment Agency and weigh up the different material considerations, from biodiversity to the need for more homes. Having said that, 99% of proposed new residential units that the EA objected to on floodplain grounds were decided in line with EA advice, where the decisions are known. I would say this, however: there is no monopoly on knowledge. Local elected councillors should decide and be held to account for their decisions.

Nevertheless, the estimated number of dwellings built in areas of high flood risk in England is now at its lowest rate since modern records began. That figure will change from year to year. It may rise and it may fall, but it will never be zero. A zero figure would mean a complete ban on any form of development in many existing towns and cities that happen to be flood-risk areas. Approximately 10% of England is high flood risk, such as large parts of Hull, Portsmouth and central London—indeed, this Chamber is in a high flood risk area. National planning policy clearly states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Councils should direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is unavoidable, it must be demonstrated that it is safe and will not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Councils have a robust power to reject unacceptable planning applications. Councils’ local plans should also shape where development should and should not take place. They should address the needs of associated infrastructure to accompany new building. National planning policy is clear that any new building that is needed in flood-risk areas should be appropriately flood-resistant and resilient. Mitigation measures such as land raising, landscaping, raised thresholds and rearranging the internal use of buildings can also make a development appropriate in such areas.

For example, London has long been at risk of tidal flooding, as evident from the North sea floods of 1953, which inflicted immense damage to the east end of London. However, since 1983 the Thames barrier has mitigated that risk. We did not have to ban all development in London; we overcame the challenge through science. We do not face a binary choice of economic growth versus flooding, town versus country or bailing out flood victims versus saving children in other parts of the world from being killed by contaminated drinking water. These are false comparisons and false choices. I want to be clear: we can and must do both. All that is required is political will, determination and innovation.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Secretary of State talks about development being directed away from flood-risk areas unless it is absolutely necessary. However, the question is: why is it absolutely necessary to build in certain areas that are at great risk of flooding, including in my constituency, which he has been kind enough to observe?

[Mr Pickles]

I vividly remember the visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency in 2007. There is rarely a time when I pass Tewkesbury that I do not think of that. He makes a very reasonable point. Historic Tewkesbury remained relatively dry, while the new bit has experienced a degree of flooding. Things have to be managed. Ten per cent of the country is a large area; London is a large area. We need to ensure that a degree of caution is exercised, but ultimately we have to ensure that our citizens are safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to make a brief speech in this important debate. My constituency did not flood immediately but the waters got there in the end, and the continuing rain made for a difficult couple of weeks. I was grateful to the Prime Minister for coming in person to see the effects and meet a number of people who told him what we needed to do—and to avoid doing—in our area. I will outline one or two of those things in a moment.

I was pleased with the Government’s response to the flooding, so far as my constituency was concerned. I was also pleased that the Army was called in to help certain vulnerable people, and I commend the good work done by the fire and rescue services, the police, the Environment Agency and a number of the local councillors, who responded very quickly to the flooding.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I spank my hon. Friend—[Laughter.] I mean, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am going red now. The Pitt review suggested that when the armed forces were used in these circumstances, they should be paid for at full cost. Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to look into reducing the cost of the armed forces at times of national emergency? At the moment, they often seem too expensive to be used.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have to say that there is very little chance of his going red, as far as I know. He makes a good point, and he knows far more than I do about the financing of the Army.

The Government response in my area was certainly very good, and a number of the schemes that have been built there in the past few years have also been very successful. Nevertheless, three of the four roads that serve the town of Tewkesbury were closed, and the situation was becoming serious. Sadly, a number of houses were also flooded. I say “houses”, but I should rephrase that. They are people’s homes. Some homes in Sandhurst and Longford, which are villages just down the River Severn, were flooded for the third time in not very many years, and it was heartbreaking to visit them. The challenge, which I want to discuss with the Government, is how we can avoid such flooding in the future.

It has been acknowledged that the Government cannot control the weather, and we seem to have experienced rather different weather cycles over the past few years. Nobody will have forgotten the terrible floods of 2007, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles) came to visit Tewkesbury and saw some of the problems that we were facing. Even people on the other side of the world heard about those floods. I have spoken to people in Australia who remember seeing the famous picture of the flooded land surrounding Tewkesbury abbey. The abbey itself did not flood, and neither did an even older church just down the way at Deerhurst—it was built in about the 8th century—even though the village does flood.

The important point, which I am going to have to take up with the Secretary of State, although I raised it in an intervention and he did mention the building, is how vital it is not to continue to build in flood-risk areas. I hear what he says about 10% of the country being at flood risk. I have only a simple education, but I suggest that we do not build in the 10% and concentrate building in the 90%. Surely there is enough room to build the houses that we need.

I want to take up the issue of house building, because of a number of sites in my area that have been given planning permission. One of them is absolutely covered in water—it is at Longford, in an area that floods badly. Permission was granted, on appeal, by the previous Government, but I do not know why that happened. That was six years ago, but the houses have not yet been built. Planning permission has been given for a lot of houses in both Bishop’s Cleeve and Brockworth, but those, too, have not yet been built. I say to my right hon. Friend, and to the Government, that I do not accept that there is this need for housing which is being expressed; this need is being overestimated by the Government. I have raised the issue before and we need to look at the point carefully.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I recognise many of the issues that my hon. Friend from down the River Severn is raising. I do believe that houses need to be built, but does he agree that councillors should play a key role by making sure that they keep a record of flooded sites where some form of planning permission might have been given and, where necessary, use the planning system to protect them better, so that they are protecting the floodplain in the future?

[Mr Robertson]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for that intervention. However, the councils in my area are saying that the Government are putting so much pressure on them to build a given number of houses that they have no choice but to build them in green-belt and flood-risk areas. I am sorry to have to say it to the Secretary of State but that is what my local councils are telling me. They are saying that they cannot accommodate the number of houses that they will be required to build without impinging on the green belt and without putting them in flood-risk areas. That is open for debate, but that is what my local councils are clearly saying to me. I really need him to examine the situation carefully and as a matter of urgency, because it is causing a very big problem. That issue was raised with the Prime Minister when he came to my constituency a week or so ago.

I wish to raise one or two other points about building in flood-risk areas. First, this issue comes down to what we define as a “flood-risk area”. I understand that the Environment Agency will assess an area as being at flood risk only if it is at risk from river flooding and not if it is at risk of surface water flooding. I would be happy to be corrected on that, but that is the situation as I understand it. Someone whose home is flooded does not really care what kind of water it is or where it has come from, because the situation is bad and they do not want it to happen. Perhaps the Government need to give different advice to the Environment Agency on how it classifies flood-risk areas.

[Dan Rogerson]

I just want to confirm that the flooding maps published by the Environment Agency before Christmas include surface flooding. Such an updating of the maps was one of the recommended changes, so that information is there. In addition, local authorities have key responsibilities in respect of groundwater and surface water flooding.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that and I will certainly take it up with the Environment Agency locally, but the map I saw just a couple of weeks ago was not coloured blue where there is surface water flooding. We need to take that up, but I will certainly take his words back to the local Environment Agency.

I am also concerned about what the Environment Agency has told me about the cost-benefit ratio of flood prevention schemes. I raised this in a written question and I was told, “As long as it is greater than a level ratio, that is okay. They can go ahead and carry out those schemes.” But that is not what the Environment Agency is saying to me when I raise these points with it. So, again, I have to take these points back to the Environment Agency to see what we can do to have even more schemes put into place.

I hear what has been said about dredging and desilting. They are not the entire answer to the problem, but in some areas, especially where there are pinch points, we must carry out that work. Although dredging and desilting are carried out in certain parts of the country, they used to be carried out an awful lot more. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has now weighed in on this and agreed that they should take place in certain areas, and that is what we are pressing the Environment Agency to do.

I welcome a number of the initiatives that have recently been taken to help compensate people who have been flooded and to provide for the repairs and replacements that they need. Will there be any help for people to provide their own flood defences so that they do not get flooded in the first place? People who are better off may be able to afford to do that, but those who are less well off cannot. It would be better if we could help people to prevent the flooding in the first place, as well as trying to help those who have been flooded.

On the issue of insurance, I am pleased that a lot of progress has been made on the Flood Re scheme, but what about the excess payments? An insurance company might provide the insurance, but if it puts an excess of £30,000 or £40,000, which I have come across, on a property it is effectively not covered, because an owner would have to pay so much to put it right that they would not be getting any insurance money back. I do not know whether the excesses will be covered in the Flood Re scheme.

[Mr Pickles]

indicated assent.

[Mr Robertson]

My right hon. Friend is nodding. I look forward to receiving more details on that. That is good news if that is to be the case.

Finally, I ask the Secretary of State to revisit the issue of housing numbers and to prevent houses being built in the wrong places, where they are likely to flood or cause other houses to flood.

Badger Vaccines

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

It is generally accepted that, after the initial conclusions of the randomised badger culling trials, there was a significant reduction of some 16% in the cull area in the following years. On perturbation, which other hon. Members have also raised, there was an increase in TB in a ring immediately around the trial areas as a result of perturbation, but the incidence then dropped. Overall, there was a reduction. I point the hon. Lady to evidence in other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland, which has had a cull policy since 2000 with a reduction of around 45% in the incidence of the disease, and the number of cattle having to be slaughtered has halved.

There is no magic bullet and no single policy that can change the situation dramatically. Vaccination of badgers and cattle has a role; wildlife control has a role; dealing with the reservoir of TB in wildlife has a role; and routine testing, movement controls and better biosecurity all have a role. But none of them alone is the entire solution.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Part of the trial is taking place in my constituency. My first ministerial meeting when I was elected 16 years ago was with Jeff Rooker on this very subject, and only now is any meaningful action taking place. The Minister is absolutely right to say that a whole range of measures is needed to counter the disease, but it has been increasing and farmers have been suffering. We must get a grip on it.

[George Eustice]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have painted a picture of how bleak the matter is. The disease is spreading and we cannot ignore it any more; we must take action.

Returning to vaccination, which is the subject of the debate, I think it is worth noting that successive Governments have invested more than £43 million on vaccine research and development since 1994. The coalition Government will have spent at least a further £15 million. I say “at least” because the figure excludes what is likely to be sizeable expenditure on the necessary work on cattle vaccine field trials.

Oral Answers to Questions

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

As part of the cull is taking place in my constituency, I thank the Secretary of State for being the first in over a generation to tackle this issue. Does he share my concern at the statement made by the police and crime commissioner for Gloucestershire yesterday opposing the extension of the trial? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what should happen, not a publicity-seeking PCC?

[Mr Paterson]

Policing issues are not for me. There will be legitimate protests because we live in a democracy and we respect that, but there is a grey line and we do not support obstruction of a policy that was endorsed by both parties in opposition and in government and has been endorsed by this House.