Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me make a few housekeeping points. We will have an informal three-minute limit, but if colleagues intervene a lot and we are running out of time, I may have to make a formal ruling from the Chair, which will mean that any interventions add a minute to the time of the Member who is speaking.

Can I just say that when colleagues attend debates in this Chamber, or any other debate, they really should wait for the end of at least the first speech, having intervened, before leaving? The person who left the Chamber is not here to hear that ruling, but I offer it as a gentle reminder for other colleagues. Also, when Members make a speech, they should remain in the Chamber until they have heard two other speakers before leaving.

My final observation from this debate is that if colleagues come in—[Interruption.] Order. Forgive me, but the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos) might want to hear this. If an hon. Member comes in halfway through the opening speech, they should not expect to intervene, having not heard at least the introduction and some of the preamble to the substantive points.

I hope that is helpful. I share it from a point of weakness, having myself made all of those mistakes and many more over many years. We will have an informal limit of three minutes to start. I call Grahame Morris.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

As the Opposition Front Benchers will know, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and shadow Minister will get five minutes each and the Minister will get 10 minutes. The debate is due to finish at 4 pm; we were going to put a time limit on speeches, but some Members have left this debate early and some did not speak as long as expected. If Members who have not spoken want to make a brief intervention, you can do so over the next few minutes, but I ask you to please be brief. I think that is fair, given that I hinted at a voluntary time limit and that the debate has been well attended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I should say that I allowed the Front Benchers to speak a little longer given that we have some time. If the Minister wishes to take interventions, she can, although she does not have to. I remind her that if she so chooses she can give time at the end—just a couple of minutes—to the mover of the motion Tim Farron.

Before I call the Minister, I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham will forgive my mentioning that it is a procedure of the House—a courtesy—to be in the whole debate and not come in after 65 minutes of a 90-minute debate and then make an intervention. It is not really the way to add to a debate or get the most out of it. I am sure he will take note of that. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

Mr Pritchard, she’s a good ‘un. I thank the Minister very much indeed; I appreciate that.

Finally, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, but I also thank you, Mr Pritchard. That might sound a bit smarmy, but you and I go back a long way. I wish that when I first started here I had a Chair of Westminster Hall debates who talked us through the process as well as you have today. I am very grateful to you, and indeed to everybody else who has been here for this debate.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

You will definitely be called first in the next debate, that’s for sure. [Laughter.] You have been here a long time; you know how to work the system. So, there we are. No—there is no system to work; we are neutral in the Chair. But thank you for your kind comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the regulation and financial stability of water companies.

Importation and Sale of Foie Gras

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Giles Watling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I raise the matter here today precisely because I do not think enough action has taken place since that previous debate.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first vote. If there are subsequent votes, it will be 10 minutes. Then, as soon as the mover of the motion and the Minister are here, we can proceed, so I ask hon. Members to go quickly as possible, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Am I allowed to take an intervention, Mr Pritchard? I am not sure whether I have time.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Yes, you have time.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will be generous and take another intervention.

Marine Management Organisation

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I will call Giles Watling to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as he will know is the convention for these shorter, 30-minute debates.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Marine Management Organisation.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am thrilled to have this opportunity to stand up for coastal communities, particularly my own in Clacton—a place that I have been a part of and lived in for over 55 years and have represented both locally and nationally since 2007. I have seen at first hand what works in our environment and what does not. Our extraordinary coastline has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. It is home to a Ramsar site and is a site of special scientific interest; it is a salt marsh, with superb beaches, cliffs and backwaters.

Recently, I tabled a private Member’s Bill that seeks to put in place a pilot to devolve many functions of the Marine Management Organisation to local authorities. The MMO is a group that I have increasingly come to see as not fit for purpose. It lacks experience and is flippant in respect of the needs of local communities. Indeed, I have been told that we once had turn up to look at a marine development in the backwaters two officials from the MMO who seemed to be surprised about tidal range and direction.

More recently, the Naze Protection Society waited 13 weeks for a licence from the MMO to undertake vital coastal works that involved protecting a sewage farm from incursion by the sea. Every tide that came and went and every storm that happened made those works more difficult and more expensive. The Naze Protection Society contacted me in desperation, as it had the money, the materials and the contractors standing by but was held up for want of a simple licence from the MMO. I made a couple of calls to the Minister and the Secretary of State, and the licence was issued almost immediately. It should not take a call to an MP to get this simple stuff done.

In my opinion, the MMO is failing. For that reason, I have worked with my excellent local authority, Tendring District Council, which has offered to put in place a pilot that it will run, absorbing and discharging the licensing and management duties. I want to see that happen for three core reasons, which also illustrate why I felt this debate was needed. First, it seems rather odd to me that we allow the MMO so much centralised power. We have seen planning and licensing become core parts of local authorities’ action plans. Councils are accountable and, by their very nature, have a deep understanding of local issues and the local scene. We need to look to a slimmer MMO, more devolution and a non-executive directors board of experts with real-life experience, holding the MMO to account.

Secondly, we should really be moving past all these organisations with people who just seem to collect non-executive directorships. We have spoken a lot in this place about how expensive distant and unaccountable quangos can be.

Microchipping of Pets

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

We are still in the hybrid setting, as hon. Members will have noted. Mr Speaker has asked me to remind all colleagues that they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at their email address, which is [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn throughout a Westminster Hall debate in the Boothroyd Room. Members who are attending physically and are in the latter stages of the call list should initially use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats there become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones. There can be no interventions virtually; they can be made only physically. Thank you for your attention.

Moorland Burning

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of moorland burning.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important issue of moorland burning. I hope no one in this House would dispute that we are in a climate and nature emergency. That means we have not only a moral imperative to ban this destructive practice, but environmental, ecological and existential imperatives to protect and restore our precious peatlands.

The UK peatlands contain an estimated 3,200 million tonnes of carbon, more than the forests of the UK, France and Germany combined. There is no way that the Government can tackle the climate crisis without ensuring that our peatlands continue to store that colossal quantity of carbon. It would be a catastrophe if it were released and, yet that is exactly what is happening.

While upland peatland should be a net carbon sink, continued mismanagement means that the UK’s peatlands are a net source of emissions. When they could and should be being used for carbon sequestration to safely store carbon, our peat bogs are instead releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reports that that is equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide released by 140,000 cars a year. The cause is moorland burning.

Between the 1940s and the present, there has been a sevenfold increase in burning on peatland in England alone. In Great Britain, between 2001 and 2011, burning increased at a rate of 11% per year. The more we allow that to continue, the greater the acceleration in the climate crisis we will see before our eyes. We will also see impacts on our environment.

Britain’s blanket bogs make up 10% to 15% of the world’s entire resource. Burning peat bogs dries out peat soil and lowers the water table, changing the flora and fauna to advantage species such as grouse, and transforming these rich, biodiverse habitats into distorted ecologies suitable for only a few animals and plants. We have a duty to preserve their vast biodiversity.

The dried peat soil also negatively impacts our water quality by releasing soil carbon into watercourses, which degrades their quality and increases the expense of cleaning our drinking water. That is because the burning harms the sphagnum mosses, which hold water in the peatlands. While the mosses recover, grasses and heather replace and out-compete them, which means that the water runs off down the hills, taking carbon from the peat with it and leading to polluted water. Burnt bogs are consequently less able to slow water flow, which leads to heavier flooding after rainfall.

I am sure my South Yorkshire colleagues will remember the terrible flooding our region suffered last year: 90% of the homes in the village of Fishlake near Doncaster were flooded last November, and, unfortunately, over a year on, some still have not been able to return to their homes. Funding for flood defences is a pressing issue, particularly when the south-east gets double the funding per person of Yorkshire and the Humber and more than five times that of the north-east. We need the Government to deliver fairer funding for flood defences, but we also need to move the debate away from mitigating the effects of the climate and environment emergency to tackling the causes. That means locking carbon in the ground by restoring our upland peat bogs, slowing the water flow, soaking up heavy rainfall and preventing the next flooding crisis before it occurs.

Peatlands also play a vital role in UK water security and must be protected to preserve the UK’s water supply in the coming years. Researchers at the University of Leeds estimate that 72.5% of the storage capacity of reservoirs in the UK is peatlands-fed water. That demonstrates the crucial role that peatlands play in our water security.

In January, the Committee on Climate Change recommended that peat burning should be banned by the end of 2020. The Government have routinely committed to ending the burns, but we have yet to see any legislative progress towards that. Instead, the Government have asked landowners only to sign voluntary agreements not to burn, and they simply are not working. For the sake of our environment, the Government must announce an immediate ban on this destructive practice and restore our peatlands to their natural bog habitats, so that they can deliver for biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

But that is only the first step. Announcing a ban is not the same as enacting one. For example, in my constituency, the moors at Stanage and Strines are both sites of special scientific interest, which means they should be protected areas, yet both regularly see burning. Due to the lack of proper resourcing and maintenance, too many of our protected areas are protected in name only. This Government’s record on maintaining existing areas of environmental protection shows a sustained failure to protect those protected sites.

In 2010, 43% of SSSIs in England were in favourable condition; by 2020 that had dropped to 39%. The condition of SSSIs in England is actually worse in our national parks and areas of natural beauty than outside them. That is a direct consequence of under-resourcing and underfunding conservation—yet another devastating consequence of the last 10 years of austerity. The Government’s own figures show that public sector spending on biodiversity in the UK fell from £641 million to £456 million between 2012 and 2017—a drop of 29%. The RSPB argues that the Government’s approach to achieving nature targets has completely failed due to

“neglect of basic monitoring and compliance, a reliance on voluntary approaches and unwillingness to regulate, and dwindling public resources for action”—

a damning summation.

As well as committing to banning peatland burning and giving a firm date on which that will come into effect, Ministers must commit to properly resourcing conservation bodies so that they are able to monitor and clamp down on any illegal burning and ensure that peatlands are rewetted and restored. That is why I am so pleased to support Labour’s plan for a national nature service.

An expansion of spending on maintaining or restoring our peatlands is vital if we are to maintain our zero carbon commitments, but it is also a way of providing the employment stimulus we need in the wake of the pandemic; protecting and maintaining our peat bogs and our natural environment in all its diversity goes hand in hand with creating good-quality public sector jobs.

We should take inspiration from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps between 1933 and 1942, whose workers planted 3 billion trees and paved the way for America’s system of national and state parks, which were also a central part of the new deal. The national nature service should be at the heart of the green new deal for workers, creating a zero carbon army. We need to manage our moorlands effectively and to lock CO₂ into the ground. At the same time, that would provide a host of secure jobs and benefit many people, including young black, Asian and minority ethnic workers, who have been hit hardest by the employment crisis. It would also help to diversify the conservation sector.

Nobody in this debate supports the deregulation of moorlands. The idea that setting fire to large swathes of our countryside is a responsible form of regulation and management is completely incredible. It releases millions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, making the climate emergency worse. It destroys habitats and damages the ecosystem and ecologies. As fires rage on our uplands, they increase the threat of floods from our lowland rivers.

We cannot rely on the good will of landowners to stop the burning—just ask the residents of Hebden Bridge and the Calder valley. We all saw on our TVs the damage done to those communities by last year’s flooding, and many now attribute those floods to heather burning on Walshaw moor. Instead, we need to restore and re-wet our peatlands, using them as one of the many natural solutions to the climate crisis. To do that, we must end the year-on-year cuts to spending on the environment and set out a plan for investing in nature. That means having a national nature service to create well-paid, secure, unionised jobs. We need to lock CO₂ into the ground and to protect biodiversity and our natural environment’s fragile ecologies. We also need to ensure that those who seek to burn protected peatlands face the full weight of the law.

I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to outline the timetable for bringing forward legislation. It is time to end the fires, floods and climate chaos. It is well past time we banned the burn.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

May I remind colleagues that there are five minutes for the Opposition Front Benchers and 10 minutes for the Government. This debate is due to finish at 17.32 pm. I am not putting a time limit on speeches, but we have eight other speakers apart from the Front Benchers and the mover of the motion at this point. Please bear that in mind.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Two thirds of the North York Moors national park—that glorious countryside that many of us will have seen on the television programme “Heartbeat”—lie in the Scarborough and Whitby constituency, and 79% of the North Yorkshire moors and Pennine special protection areas are managed as grouse moors. It is vital—I agree with the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake)—that we preserve that peat.

The North Yorkshire moors are not, in the main, blanket bogs. They are dry heathland peat, and different ways of management need to be conducted on different types of moorland. It is also vital that we preserve these fragile habitats, and if we are to preserve them, they do need managing.

Heather moorland is rarer than rainforest, and 75% of Europe’s heather moorland is in the United Kingdom. Of the upland SSSIs, 60% are on moorland, which has, for decades, been managed in traditional ways.

I remember, as a child, crossing the North Yorkshire moors and seeing people cutting peat for fuel. Indeed, the legendary Saltersgate Inn had a fire that never went out, because, apparently, a Revenue man was buried under the fireplace and it was the only way of preventing him from being discovered. Sadly, the Saltersgate Inn is no more.

It is important that we look at all ways of managing peat, particularly in terms of arable degradation—as a farmer myself, I understand that. We should also look at the way horticultural peat is harvested and—the Republic of Ireland is phasing out its power stations—at how we do not use peat for power.

I must make the point that the North Yorkshire moors are not a natural environment. They are a fragile environment. In the middle ages, the moors were covered in trees, which were cut down for fuel and used to smelt the iron stone found under those moors. Only in the Victorian era did management systems come in that encouraged sheep farming and grouse. That involved cool burning the heather in the winter period, between 1 October and 15 April, when the fire was unlikely to get into the peat itself. That involves burning small patches of the moorland to create a patchwork of different stages of heather, some of it very tender and young. It is the tender, young heather that the sheep and grouse can feed on. The old, woody heather is no good for the grouse and is certainly no good for sheep. It is also no good, by the way, for ground-nesting birds such as the golden plover, the lapwing and the curlew.

If the hon. Lady wants to come and see what happens to moors if they are not managed in that way, she should come to Troutsdale moor just outside Scarborough, which has not been managed as a moor for about the last 30 years and has reverted to scrubland. There are none of the birds that we want to preserve on the North Yorkshire moors. If there were no sheep, who would mend the stone walls? According to her, it would be a unionised army of nature service people, but the farmers are the people who should be farming on the moorland and managing it.

If we did not manage the moorland in the way we do, we would see wildfires. Burning creates firebreaks. We have seen in the United States and Australia how, when they stopped back burning, fires got out of hand. In 2019, there was a record number of wildfires. In 2020, that record was broken, with 110 fires.

Indeed, Saddleworth moor—a moor that has not been managed in the traditional way that we use in the North Yorkshire moors—had three weeks of fires, which produced the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as 100,000 car years and cost £20 million. That fire got into the peat, as such wildfires do, which is what damages it. I must make the point that controlled burning does not burn the peat; it burns the vegetation and allows the sphagnum moss, which forms more peat, and the young heather to regenerate.

Mowing is not practical on most of the moorland because of the topography and the amount of stones; indeed, that encourages the growth of sedges, which can release large amounts of methane, which has a carbon factor 96% higher than CO₂. That is recognised by the North York Moors National Park Authority, for which it is policy to support the traditional rotational cool burning of heather to maintain the moorland in the way that wildlife, and economic activity such as grouse shooting and sheep farming, need.

I say to the Minister that we need more science before we make any decisions. The science is unfolding. We also need to understand that some people are against the burning of moorland because they are against grouse shooting. That is a perfectly respectable position to have, but they should not use it to destroy the very fragile environment of the North Yorkshire moors. If we do not have a managed moorland, we will have no grouse, no sheep, no lapwings, no curlews and no birds of prey.

When the Minister responds, I hope she will understand that we need to do more work. We do not want to destroy this very fragile managed environment, which has been kept this way for many years, and sacrifice it for some political campaign that is to do with a lot of other things, not just managing moorland.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members know that I try to avoid formal time limits, so I will edge towards an informal time limit of four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for securing the debate. She spoke passionately, much as she did in her maiden speech, about the impact of peatland burning on the climate, the local environment and flooding.

Labour is calling on the Government to restate and act on their commitment to the legislation that they promised over a year ago. It is imperative that rhetoric on climate leadership is more than simply rhetoric, and they have an opportunity to put words into action. As part of our plan for nature, Labour is calling on the Government to help restore degraded peatlands to their natural state by ending the harvesting of peat and the burning of moors or blanket bog. A comprehensive independent review into habitats and fire risk caused by grouse shooting management arrangements, with a view to new regulatory controls, has been a long time coming.

We have had a very good debate, and there are obviously a wide range of different opinions, from those of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to those of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who spoke with characteristic expertise about moorland management. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned, Natural England recently published its position statement, which restates its commitment to end burning and to restore our upland peatlands in order to conserve wildlife and carbon. The restoration of those areas to bog habitats is also supported by the RSPB, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the majority of academics, environmental non-governmental organisations, and many northern councils and Mayors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) mentioned that peatland also plays an important role in water and flood management, and I commend her for all the work that she has done on this issue. Our peatlands form a significant and vital part of the UK’s carbon storage. They contain more carbon than the forests of the UK, France and Germany combined but, through the burning of peat bogs, we are releasing huge amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere each year—the equivalent of driving over 140,000 cars a year. In January, the Committee on Climate Change recommended that peat burning should be banned by the end of 2020 as a “low-cost, low-regret” action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We are facing a great challenge ahead of us. We need immediate and decisive action to ensure not only that we meet our international obligations, but that we are world leaders in the efforts to tackle the climate emergency. Research by the University of Leeds has found that the burning of grouse moors not only releases climate-altering gases, but degrades peatland habitat, reduces biodiversity and increases flood risk. The Government have implicitly acknowledged the damage that burning is causing by including the restoration of peat and moors in the flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement, and rightly so. Peatland prevents flooding downstream. It absorbs and holds back large amounts of water when there is heavy rainfall, and it releases water during times of drought.

In conclusion, we need to better manage our natural environment, not just oversee its decline. We need to improve biodiversity and reduce our carbon emissions, and we need to protect our communities that are increasingly under the threat of flooding. The Government must follow through on their commitments. It is not enough to state good intentions; we need action.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

The debate will finish at 5.32 pm. If time allows, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) might want to respond to what the Minister says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Mr Pritchard, do I have time to take an intervention?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

There are two minutes.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sorry, I did not realise the time. I just want to ask the Minister very quickly whether she might have conversations with the likes of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance to gauge the opinion of those who manage the moors, to come up with a policy that everyone can agree on.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you so much for raising that. I do talk to all those people. I have been out with gamekeepers to look at the land. We have to get this right; we do not want to make enemies. We have to work together. There have got to be ways. We will release our peat strategy soon and there will be some detailed information in there. It will cover all things relating to peat and these other sections, as well as the land managers. The Government have made a commitment to do something about this. We do have to do something about climate change, do we not, Chair?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I am neutral.

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes; sorry. And we have to do something about our carbon storage, our wildlife protection, our clean water and our flood control.

I will wind up now. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for raising the topic and I thank everyone for their input. It is a fiery and a heated topic, and there will be more water coming under this bridge.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

For the purposes of the record the Chair is neutral in all debates, but without telling anybody, of course we need to tackle climate change. I have probably broken the rules.

[Olivia Blake]

I thank everyone who has taken part in today’s rowdy debate. I want to quickly clarify a few points, if I may, about the body of scientific evidence. I will quote from the International Union for Conservation of Nature peatland programme’s position statement. The first point states:

“The current body of available scientific evidence indicates that burning on peatland can result in damage to peatland species, microtopography and wider peatland habitat, peat soils and peatland ecosystem functions.”

The second point, which is what I have been getting at, states:

“Healthy peatlands do not require burning”

to be maintained. I am not saying for one moment that our moorlands do not need to be maintained, but that the practice of burning creates a self-reinforcing circle. We burn the heather, it comes back, then we burn it and dry it out, and then it comes back. That is why the number of fires has been increasing year on year. Finally, just on identity politics—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Have a good evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why earlier this week we had a detailed workshop with both retailers and food processors to identify what they would like to do and what changes to competition law we would need to consider and implement. We are working on that right now.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Telford and Wrekin Council will now have to deliver 5,000 free school meals a day without being able to do so through schools, except for key workers’ children. What more can the Government do, given that many volunteers and people working in charities who might offer to backfill where support is required may be self-isolating or may have been encouraged by the Government to self-isolate? There really is an issue with logistics.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working on a national volunteer project to co-ordinate the many offers of volunteer help that we have had. In the context of food, we have been working very closely with supermarkets to expand their click-and-collect services to make it easier, where possible, for them to expand their delivery capacity to homes. We continue to work with other groups to identify how we can get food to people at this difficult time.

River Severn Flooding

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the flooding of the River Severn.

I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate on the recent flooding of the River Severn. I am sure that Members are aware of how badly Shrewsbury has been affected as a result of that flooding. The part of Shrewsbury where I live, Coton Hill, was badly affected, with terrible damage and flooding in my neighbourhood. However, over the past few days and weeks I have spent quite a bit of time in another bit of Shrewsbury, Coleham, which has also been badly affected by these floods. I will refer to a couple of people whose situations I am very conscious of, some of whom I have met: Lee and Sandra from The Hair Forum, Rachel from The Glam Studio, and G. O. Elson, who is in his 50th year as a local butcher. Seeing the devastation that has happened in those people’s neighbourhoods and the financial damage caused to their businesses has been galling.

Yesterday, I met with Peter Nutting, the leader of Shropshire Council, when he came to the House of Commons. He informed me that over 300 businesses and residential properties had been affected just in Shrewsbury, and estimated that the cost of clearing up from the ramifications of this flood will be over £1 million in my constituency alone. Of course, the Bellwin scheme will help, but a large chunk of money will not come from that scheme; Shropshire Council is having to find that money itself. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) will attest, our local council is grappling at the moment with the massive, spiralling costs of adult social care, and is running a deficit and struggling to make ends meet as it is. Those additional costs will be very problematic for it.

Local residents have stressed that action is needed, as problems with insurance and future floods will finish off many independent traders. I spoke to one bed and breakfast hotel owner who lost £30,000 over the course of these events. He was near tears as he showed me the devastation to his hotel. As is typical for businesses, his hotel will not only suffer during the floods, but for days and weeks afterwards. The media are very good at highlighting that Shrewsbury has flooded and very good at showing pictures of a flooded Shrewsbury, but not so good at subsequently informing citizens around the United Kingdom that those floods have alleviated. Whether a business is a local pub, a local hotel or whatever else, its books will be significantly down, not just over the course of the floods but in the following days and weeks.

Seeing the devastation and listening to the heartbreaking stories has hastened my resolve to get action for these hard-working entrepreneurs. That is why on Wednesday 26 February, I was here in the House of Commons rather than in my constituency with my electorate, because I wanted to challenge the Prime Minister at Question Time, to share with him what was going on in Shrewsbury, and to try to secure some sort of commitment from him. If she checks Hansard, the Minister will see that in response to my question, the Prime Minister assured me on the Floor of the House that whatever work the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency do together to alleviate the problems on the River Severn, and whatever solution they come up with, he will ensure that the Government support that solution. I am going to hold the Government to account on this issue and make sure that the Prime Minister fulfils the commitment that he made to me.

I am obviously delighted that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a massive additional allocation of taxpayers’ money for flood alleviation schemes in this afternoon’s Budget. With that in mind, we are going to ensure, hopefully collectively—I am pleased that other right hon. and hon. Friends from constituencies along the River Severn are also present—that we fight for our share of those additional resources to make sure a holistic solution is found for the Severn.

Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to visit Shrewsbury, and I am grateful that he took the time to visit my town. He met flood victims and also came to Shirehall, the council building in Shrewsbury, to meet with local councillors including Peter Nutting, as well as with council officials including Mark Barrow and others, who are in the audience today. He received a presentation on a topic I hope to address later: the River Severn partnership, which is a holistic, collective approach of communities and organisations up and down the River Severn, working together to come up with a credible solution for managing that river. We will then want the Government to support that solution.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on having secured this debate, and have absolutely no doubts that he will hold the Government to account. He has already alluded to some heart-wrenching stories, but does he agree that there have also been some very positive stories, and that we should pay tribute to local authority workers, Shropshire Council, Telford and Wrekin Council, the Environment Agency and the emergency services? All those groups have done a huge service to the people of Shropshire.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I could not agree more, and I am sure that all of my right hon. and hon. Friends from Shropshire will join him in paying tribute to those people.

The River Severn partnership is a strategic coalition of 18 organisations, including local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, water companies and the Environment Agency. It has an agreed memorandum of understanding aimed at working collaboratively to develop a comprehensive long-term approach to management of the River Severn. Here, we have an established group of all the relevant and appropriate bodies, working together on an innovative and forward-looking holistic solution that could literally be a game-changing approach to flood management.

Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries Study

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Westminster Hall

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

We are all very privileged to be in the final Westminster Hall debate not only of this Session but of this Parliament, as we prepare for a general election. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), with whom I have had many debates on these issues. He has been a champion for the inshore fleet, particularly around East Anglia. Of course, his constituency is also home to the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is the national headquarters of our fisheries science agency and has a truly global reputation.

My hon. Friend was also with me on the Fisheries Bill Committee, which he mentioned, so he is familiar with our White Paper and our approach in the Bill. Sadly, that Bill has now fallen with the end of this Parliament. However, I believe that the principles we debated in Committee will be as relevant as ever when Parliament returns and when we leave the European Union. That is why the Government are committed to bringing back a fisheries Bill.

In the original Bill, we set out a number of important approaches. Clause 1 set out a whole series of fisheries objectives, including objectives for fishing sustainably and towards maximum sustainable yield. It was also very clear that we would take control of our exclusive economic zone, which means controlling access out to 200 nautical miles or the median line.

There were also ideas to improve the way in which the discard ban works. For example, a discard disincentive scheme would create a national reserve that fishermen with out-of-quota stock could access, and they would have to pay a penalty so that there was no incentive for them to target vulnerable stocks. In addition, we would have made it easier for them to avoid their current problem of choke species. Our fisheries White Paper was also clear that we would depart from relative stability—the EU sharing arrangements—and move to a new and more scientific sharing arrangement, based on zonal attachment, to which my hon. Friend referred.

We have also been clear that as we depart from relative stability and transition to this new and more scientific approach, under which we will have additional catching opportunities, we will use a different methodology to allocate any new quota coming into the UK. Although we want to keep some stability in the short term by keeping the current fixed quota allocation units for existing quota, additional opportunities will be distributed using different criteria. We are interested in giving additional quota to the inshore fleet—the under-10 pool, as it is currently described. We may tender some quota to existing producer organisations, based on their track record of sustainability. We will also, as I have said, keep some of that quota back for a national reserve.

Into the mix of this quite exciting change for our fisheries policy comes the Renaissance of East Anglia Fisheries initiative. As my hon. Friend said, there are many groups involved, including the local authority, Seafish and a number of local groups. I commend the work he has done in holding the ring and organising many events to promote its objectives. Indeed, I was very pleased to be able to attend the launch of the report.

The historic reason why relative stability does not work for many of our coastal communities, in particular those around East Anglia, is broadly as follows. During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, most of our fishing fleet were catching cod in Icelandic waters, we were fishing less in our own waters, and other countries—mainly near neighbours in Europe—were fishing in those UK waters. It was very unlucky for us, in the way that sometimes happens to our country, that just as we were driven out of our Icelandic fishing grounds, where we had historic rights—we were driven right out to 200 nautical miles, following our defeat in the third cod war—we had already given the European Union control of our waters. The sharing arrangements were therefore set in concrete. To compound matters, the catch data that some of our smaller vessels had was not as comprehensive and detailed as the data that other EU countries purported to have. That created an unfairness in the sharing methodology, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, has continued to this day.

I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend and the report. I have to say that he had many asks, but I will try to deal with as many of them as possible. First, there was a proposal to close the inshore pool and to have instead a system based on effort or hours at sea. As my hon. Friend knows, our White Paper was clear that we want to pilot such a system. When it comes to the inshore fleet, there is a case to be made that sometimes an effort-based regime is more appropriate for those smaller inshore vessels, because they have a small amount of quota for a large range of stocks, and a quota system does not work that well for them. There are, however, drawbacks to an effort-based system. A pilot in Ramsgate about seven years ago was not particularly successful, so we need to learn the lessons. Nevertheless, I am open to doing it. A quota system will always be the right approach for larger trawlers and offshore vessels, because an effort-based regime is not the correct approach when it comes to pelagic fish, which have very large stocks.

Secondly, my hon. Friend asked that we require offshore vessels to land their catch in the UK and to restrict their fishing within the 12 nautical miles. He will be aware that we have given notice to quit the London fisheries convention. That expired in July. Therefore, when we leave the European Union, the historic access rights that some foreign vessels have had to fish within the six to 12-mile zone will expire. It is our intention that the 0 to 12-mile zone—our territorial waters—will be predominantly reserved for British vessels, and we will seek to restrict the access of foreign vessels to those waters.

We are also reviewing the economic link. That could include requiring vessels to land a greater proportion of their catch in the UK, so that what they catch is of benefit to communities such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We must, however, take into account certain considerations when adopting such an approach. Last year I visited the Faroes, which required 100% of catch to be landed in the Faroes. However, their fishermen complained that that meant that they were, in effect, captured by processors and did not have other market alternatives. There are, therefore, reasons for allowing some catch to be landed outside the UK, but we are seeking to strengthen the economic link.

A number of the other issues raised by my hon. Friend relate to funding. We will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. We have also announced a new domestic maritime fund, precisely to support fish processing and harbour and port facilities to help projects such as that under discussion.

The report proposes that the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and the Marine Management Organisation should be combined into a single force. There is a reason why IFCAs were created. Previously they did not have an enforcement role; they had a management role and the MMO did all the enforcement. There was criticism that individual localities did not get the attention that they felt they deserved, and that is why IFCAs were given an enforcement role. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right that there is a case for joining up more closely the efforts of the IFCAs and the MMO. That is why we formed the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre, where everybody—from the coastguard to the MMO and IFCAs—can work together to co-ordinate their assets in a single approach to the issue of enforcement.

Finally, my hon. Friend says that we should manage stocks as a mixed fishery and implement more effective controls for fishing mortality. CEFAS, which is based in Lowestoft, has done a lot of groundbreaking work. Our chief fisheries scientist, Carl O’Brien, has been a leading light in developing some of the methodologies for mixed fisheries analysis, and this is something that the UK is keen to pursue.

In conclusion, I welcome the REAF report and commend my hon. Friend for his work. As for where we go from here, I stand ready to work with him in the future, should we both be returned to this place, to further develop the thinking. When it comes to administrative support for the project, I know that Seafish has been involved and I think it would also be good to engage the local enterprise partnership in the process, to help to support bids. The time will come, however, when REAF will, I presume, want to turn its ideas into a grant bid to one of our maritime funds—either an existing fund or a future one—and at that point my Department and the MMO would stand ready to assess that application. My hon. Friend will be fully aware that I cannot give any cast-iron guarantees that it will get support, but I can guarantee that it will be given full consideration. I thank my hon. Friend again for his work and I commend him for the points he raised.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Before I adjourn this sitting, I would like to thank, I am sure on behalf of all colleagues, the Clerks, the attendants and the security officers outside, the sound and broadcasting staff, who of course are never seen but do an excellent job every time we sit in Westminster Hall, and the Hansard staff for their excellent coverage of our debates. Indeed, I thank all the staff of the House in what has been a very short parliamentary Session following one of the longest parliamentary Sessions in the last 450 years of our history. I thank you all.

I can now say, for the last time in this Parliament, that the sitting stands adjourned.

Leaving the EU: Upland Farming

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am afraid that the situation in Wales is not as good as for English farmers, who have certainty until 2022—[Interruption.] I am not aware of the situation in Scotland, because I am a Welsh Member of Parliament. I am sure the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) will accept that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) may address those issues.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members want to make a contribution, they can intervene or speak. I ask those who intervene to be mindful that this is a very popular debate. I will impose a time limit once Mr Edwards ends his speech, and that is likely to be shorter if people keep intervening. I do not want to stop debate, but be mindful of other colleagues in the Chamber.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Pritchard. I will return to the issue at hand, Welsh farming.

In Wales, the situation has been compounded by the decision of the Labour Government of my country to reduce direct payments to producers by 15% by moving money from pillar 1. However, the point remains that CAP payments offer a degree of stability. While previously, under CAP, farmers did not have to worry overtly about the impact of Westminster elections on the amount of agricultural support they would receive, they could easily now face a situation in which a new Westminster Government could radically alter agricultural support policy. As we see from the power grab, the Labour Government of my country have abdicated all responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank the attendants and technical team for their help in resolving a problem with some of the microphones earlier.

Given the popularity of the debate, I reluctantly have to impose a time limit of four minutes. That, of course, excludes the Front Benchers, who have five minutes, apart from the shadow Minister and the Minister, who have 10.

Quiet Cities

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Will all those who are not staying please leave quickly and quietly, as we are moving on to the intriguingly titled but no doubt important debate on quiet cities?

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered quiet cities.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic; I believe this debate is a parliamentary first, certainly in the UK. There has been much debate in this place and outside, and within the legislative process in this place and outside, on green cities and smart cities in recent years. I am delighted that the Minister will answer the debate on behalf of the Government, though I am not sure whether he is delighted. He has clearly drawn the short straw today, but he has, I think, an appreciation of the aesthetics of politics.

In Shropshire, we do not have large cities—in fact, we do not have a city, and I hope that we will not have a city—but we do have slow towns. We have in the county the slow town of Ludlow, just a few miles from my Shropshire constituency. However, there has been very little public discourse or political dialogue about quiet cities—making our cities and towns quieter, and in so doing, improving the quality of life for millions of city dwellers.

Noise pollution in UK cities is becoming a greater problem, and loud cities do have an impact on the quality of life of millions of people. They also have an impact on our health. A scientific report by Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden suggests that prolonged exposure to high noise levels can be associated with elevated blood pressure; an increased heart rate; sleep deprivation; in extremis, hearing loss; tinnitus; cardiovascular disease; and cognitive impairment. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 20 million US citizens struggle with tinnitus at some point in their lives. A 2011 report by the World Health Organisation concluded that noise pollution is a direct threat to public health. Further symptoms of exposure to noise pollution include constriction of blood vessels, unhealthy tightening of muscles, and increased anxiety and stress.

What can be done? According to the World Health Organisation, national Governments, local authorities and urban planners can take some relatively low-cost action. In the case of the United Kingdom or England, that could involve Highways England and local highways authorities and agencies procuring better low noise emission road surfaces; quieter pavements; designing cities to encourage more safe use of bikes and pedestrian areas—I recognise and am glad that the Government are doing a lot in that area—encouraging the building of noise buffers when new environments are being built, which would involve landscaping and tree planting to alleviate noise; ensuring that all new public transport systems are as quiet as possible; and Government and local authorities asking, “Does this new bus or train service reduce noise in this particular city; does it make a difference?” For example, in relation to the train operating companies, let us take the Virgin Pendolino train, which I know the Minister literally takes, as do I. People will notice the difference between the Virgin Voyager train and the Virgin Pendolino. Modern technology can make a difference; making the right choice can make a difference.

Many of the WHO recommendations complement the Government’s targets on climate change, but the right to some respite from constant noise needs to be a central feature of Government policy—part of their strategy—not a by-product or consequence of another Government policy.

My own observations are these. The Government should work with motor manufacturers to encourage all cars and vehicles to have linings that stop the doors making a noise when they are slammed shut. A simple rubber lining would make a huge difference; metal on metal makes noise. Slamming doors are even an issue in the House of Commons. Where the doors are lined, they close quietly; where they are not lined, they slam and create noise pollution.

Emergency vehicles should reduce the use of their very loud sirens after midnight. The blue flashing lights are enough to alert people to their presence in the dark. Of course discretion should be allowed. That is an issue even when walking down the streets here in Westminster. The ambulances are going out to save lives; we respect that and recognise it, and they have to get through heavy traffic. But some of the sirens are so ear-piercing compared with those of other emergency vehicles. Ambulances do seem, anecdotally, to be far louder than police vehicles. Perhaps there is a reason for that, but do the sirens need to be used after midnight when the blue lights can be seen? That is a public debate I think we should have, because it does impact on people’s lives in cities and towns up and down the country.

Perhaps we should put polite notices on public transport systems. We cannot compel people to do things, but we can encourage people, through polite notices, to set their phones to vibrate or silent, as I know you do from time to time, Mr Hollobone, when you are in the Chair. I hope that we all have our phones on silent or vibrate at the moment.

There needs to be a national conversation about how to make the country—our cities and towns—quieter. We could even use polite notices about loud conversations on telephones, which I am sure have been an irritant to us all. I confess that I probably have had such conversations myself. I should do so less, and now that I have made this speech, I probably will. [Interruption.] I have proved my point, because the phone of one of the officials has just gone off. Although it is a nice tune and not an irritant, it should be on vibrate or silent. The point is that noise pollution has an impact on and makes a difference to our lives every day.

What about urban design? The concept of green buildings and skyscrapers has been around for some time. We need to encourage that more. Many years ago, a friend of mine whom I have not seen for some time—Dr Kenneth Yeang, a Malaysian-based, but Cheltenham College and Cambridge-educated green skyscraper architect—was one of the originators of green design, by which natural air cooling, instead of costly and noisy air conditioning units, is built into the building.

Space should be designed with sound in mind, so that we reduce noise pollution. Utility companies should be made to replace manhole covers in a way that does not increase noise. Loose-fitting metal covers crack or clank every time a vehicle goes over them. As hon. Members walk down the street tonight, they might hear that same noise. Imagine being an office worker or somebody living nearby, hearing that clank every few seconds on a busy road. Very low-cost, simple measures can be put in place. These problems are a noise nightmare for many local residents and office workers in this city, and in many towns and cities around the country.

A social survey by the City of London assessed that general attitudes to noise suggested that alarms and aircraft noise are the two most common causes of noise complaints. I will not comment on aircraft noise today, as that has been done many times in this place and, no doubt, will be done again. I do not want to be drawn into the third runway debate. Nevertheless, the Government can work with the security trade bodies to seek out ways of countering noise pollution from alarms. They can also recognise and work with what aircraft manufacturers are doing do reduce noise from aircraft.

The Government—the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and other Departments—could work with car manufacturers to encourage the increased production of low-noise tyres, and the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government could do more to work towards procuring silent road surfaces. I pay tribute to the Transport Secretary, who has done a lot in that area, but I hope the Government can do more. The silent road surface that covers some parts of the M54 in Shropshire has made a real difference to the quality of life of my constituents and those transiting through the constituency—both those inside and outside vehicles. Let us move towards that nationally, and make a national difference, not just a local one.

The Government could get London black cabs to convert to quieter vehicle models. I believe that that is in the Mayor of London’s strategy. I live in London as well as in Shropshire, and there is a big difference between a London black cab going by, accelerating, puffing out lots of diesel and making a noise, and the cars of the much criticised Uber drivers. I am not here to promote Uber, but most Uber drivers drive electric vehicles that are greener, cleaner and quieter. When they accelerate off, they can hardly be heard. They are making a difference. The cab trade in London generally needs to work towards using more environmentally friendly and quieter vehicles. That is the point of the debate.

Another example is the London Duck Tours. Has anyone seen the London Duck? It is a converted military vehicle that is so noisy and polluting. Throw on top of that the microphone of the person talking about the delights of central London, and it makes a real disruption to the lives of residents not only of central London in SW1, but of SE1, down in Vauxhall. Such things can be changed. It would not be of huge cost, but it would be of great benefit to many people.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

A website that I read stated:

“Motorcycle owners value the loud revving noise produced by their engines: this noise is part of what completes the experience of riding vehicles.”

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that sort of inconsiderate and selfish behaviour does not do sensible motorcyclists any good?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

I have ridden a motorbike and I like riding motorbikes, albeit mostly abroad rather than here, although I have friends that ride motorbikes here. Modifications that make motorbikes or other motor vehicles noisier is inconsiderate, but as long as those motorcycles abide by the environmental guidelines and the manufacturer’s model, I do not have an issue with that. I am conscious of the time, so I will have to speed up.

City and town planners should noise map their cities in more detail, creating anti-noise or counter-noise policies. There should be more enforcement by local councils, DCLG and other Government Departments. The national planning policy framework should include a requirement for new home builders to factor noise abatement into their designs—for example, no wooden floors in apartment blocks unless they are on the ground floor. People walk on wooden floors without carpets and it hugely stresses people in apartment blocks.

We should introduce a quiet homes standard and a single national acoustic standard across all new home building, and encourage the Royal Institute of British Architects, working with the Institute of Acoustics, to include training modules on acoustic design in all architect training courses. Certainly all public buildings should meet a minimum noise requirement, especially schools and hospitals where, perhaps, noise pollution creates the most anxiety and disruption. Public buildings should also seek to work towards a quiet mark—the international eco-award scheme for excellence in designing quiet buildings and products.

If central Government and local government cannot move quickly towards having quiet buildings, perhaps we could have quiet policies. That could be done in quite a short space of time. Within some of those noisy public buildings, quiet policies could be implemented and achieved much more speedily and readily. I ask the Government to do more to work with organisations such as the Noise Abatement Society and Environmental Protection UK to help to reduce noise in towns and cities. The police should do more to take action against motorcyclists or vehicle drivers who increase noise by illegally modifying their vehicles. We need to update our environmental laws and the Noise Abatement Act 1960 to recognise new generators of noise pollution, with a defined schedule for offending and common noise pollutions in cities.

Noise, not sound, is an unnecessary form of negative energy—a negative vibrating energy that reaches our ears and causes a sensation of hearing through our nervous system. It is that direct kinetic energy that can, so significantly, have an impact on the quality of life of millions of people in the country. The national nervous system is being attacked every day. Silence matters, and the Government need to recognise that there is a huge difference between sound and noise. Noise is unwanted. Sound, such as that of nature, birdsong in the morning, or even church bells—although some people do not like bells—may be wanted. However, the illegal hooting of horns and overly loud emergency sirens create stress.

Calm matters. It is possible to work towards quieter cities, but unless there is an overall national strategy led and implemented by the Government, local councils and other public bodies, it might never happen. In our increasing technological advancements, let us not shut out silence, time to think and an alternative to noise. My call today is quite revolutionary—a vision for cultural and political change in the built environment of cities and towns—but I believe it would be almost universally popular. It would have a huge positive environmental impact and huge health benefits.

Change can come. My ambition is for London to become the quietest city in the world. It is a big vision, but a big city needs a big vision. With the Government leading, let us all work together towards quieter cities and quieter lives. The one sound that people want to hear in the city is the sound of silence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I would be delighted to set up a meeting with transport colleagues on that issue, which I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising. That issue is a microcosm of the issues that we are facing across the country, and there is often a difficult balance to be struck. We want infrastructure, we want roads, we want railways and we want planes, but all of our infrastructure, all of our communications and all of our industrial heritage are causing noise issues.

[Mark Pritchard]

I realise that the Government and local councils cannot do everything. Local council finances are being pressed, and we know the reasons and the background, but we can encourage a change in behaviour by incentivising councils, and by rewarding new home builders by giving them recognition, such as a quiet mark or the environmental awards that they seek. Government Departments and local councils should be leading nationally on setting the standard for quiet mark awards. Does the Minister agree?

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend is in tune with a whole movement. He will be aware of the Noise Abatement Society, which now runs the annual John Connell awards. I am proud to have participated in those awards for two years in a row. They are a fantastic initiative, doing exactly what my hon. Friend is pushing for. We can probably work with the Noise Abatement Society, which has a lot of innovative ideas, on taking the awards further.

We are also making a large £600 million investment in developing ultra-low emission, particularly electric, vehicles, which will make a revolutionary difference. In fact, one of the issues with electric vehicles, of which colleagues will be aware, is that some people feel that they may be becoming dangerously quiet as they move through the streets. Huge progress can be made on electric vehicles, and we have new funds available to lay quieter roads in future.

I finish with a tribute. Parliament, and Westminster Hall, is a peculiar place. It is often difficult to work out how to come up with and drive through inspiring new ideas, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the novel idea of the quiet city. I encourage cities and towns across the country to think seriously about how different towns, ranging from Yinchuan to Hartford to Brisbane, have managed to create a culture around tranquillity, and the ways in which British towns and cities could take the lead in creating such a culture. In doing so, they would be accepting that from the very beginnings of human language, perhaps the most fundamental word—spiritually, emotionally and physically—has been the concept of peace.

Question put and agreed to.