Future Flood Prevention

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

The coalition Government in 2010—I know that the hon. Lady was not a Minister then—cut the flood defence budget by 27%. Of course, the way in which the Minister is raising the money—the extra £700 million that was announced in the Budget in March 2016—came from a stealth tax: an increase in insurance premium tax. That raises £200 million a year and goes on every insurance policy in the country, so car drivers and people who own pets are paying for flood defences. We can argue about whether that is the most transparent way of raising money for flood infrastructure.

I will talk about the Committee’s report and the criticisms that we have made, particularly about infrastructure resilience. Storm Angus caused landslips and ballast washaways on railway lines in Devon, Cornwall, the north-east and Scotland before Christmas, bringing travel disruption—as storms always do—as we saw last week with Storm Doris. Last winter’s floods, particularly those in Leeds, which the Committee visited, showed that key energy, digital and transport infrastructures are not well protected. Let us not forget the bridge being washed away in Tadcaster. The replacement bridge has only just reopened, over a year after those floods. Roads and railways going down have a huge impact on the economics of an area.

The Government’s national flood resilience review, published last summer, found that 500 sites with nationally significant infrastructure are vulnerable to flooding. During the winter floods of 2015-16, nine electricity sub-stations, and 110 water pumping stations or sewage works in Yorkshire were affected by flooding. Keeping the water supply going and the sewage under control is vital. My Committee recommended that the Government mandate energy and water companies to meet a one-in-200-year flood resilience target for risk. I am afraid that the Government’s response was hugely disappointing, simply saying, “We don’t think that’s the best way of doing it”, but not saying what the best way is. I am interested to hear that. Our strategy cannot just be tumbleweed—listening for the wind and hoping that it is not coming our way.

Minimum standards for energy, transport infrastructure and digital telecommunications companies are vital. Let us not forget that the railway lines were flooded out of Leeds. The police Airwave response radios went down, so West Yorkshire police were unable to work out where to send their blue light emergency response vehicles in the middle of a civil emergency. That is simply not good enough. If that had happened not on Boxing day, but on a normal working day a couple of days later, tens of thousands of people would have been stranded in Leeds city centre with nowhere to spend the night. There would have been a much bigger civil emergency response.

The Government’s long awaited national flood resilience review was published in September. It was good to hear about some of the things that are happening, such as the mobile flood defences. However, the Committee thinks that flood defences are essentially a sticking plaster solution: they are good as far as they go, but fail one third of the times they are used, so they work only twice in every three times. The review said nothing about the risk from heavy rainfall overwhelming sewers. No one likes to talk about sewage, although some people might think that a lot of it goes on in this place, Madam Deputy Speaker, but clearly not in this debate and under your excellent chairmanship.

The Government need a comprehensive long-term strategy properly to deal with some of the granular issues around flood risk, none more important than the way in which local authorities have to deal with flood planning and prevention. Some 30% of local authorities in September 2016 simply did not have a complete plan for flood risk, and a quarter of lead local flood authorities did not have a strategy. How are the public and Members of this place meant to scrutinise whether the plans and responses are adequate if they simply do not exist?

The Environment Agency provides advice to local councils about where new housing developments should be built in order to minimise flood risk, and the Committee heard that such advice is usually followed. However, almost 10,000 homes were built in high flood-risk areas in 2013-14. The extent to which the Environment Agency’s advice on where or whether to build homes is systematically monitored, reported or followed up through the planning system is simply not known. There is nothing wrong with building new homes in flood-risk areas, as long as those areas are adequately protected—Southwark and this place are at risk of flooding, and people are obviously still building new homes in London because there is a thing called the Thames barrier—but the situation is not being systematically monitored. We would therefore like to see much more help going from DEFRA and the DCLG to enable councils to adopt local flood plans and then actually follow them up.

In the wake of the winter storms in 2015-16, the then Prime Minister appointed two Ministers as flood envoys to co-ordinate the response to flooding in two areas: the hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) in Cumbria and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) in Yorkshire. A question was raised about whether those posts transferred under the new Government and the new Prime Minister. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in July. She responded in September, saying she was thinking about it. Finally, on 7 January, we got a reply saying, “Actually, they are still in post.” It should not take six months for the Secretary of State to reply to a Committee Chair of this House to let us know whether, in the event of a flood, those two Ministers are still co-ordinating the response. What would have happened if flooding had taken place in Jaywick? That is simply not acceptable.

Finally, on insurance, last winter’s devastating floods cost over £1.3 billion in insured losses and about £5 billion across the whole economy. As I said, my Committee visited Leeds, and we had particular access to insurance. We had people coming across from Calderdale, where 70% to 80% of businesses were affected by the flooding—they have been affected almost annually by fluvial flooding and surface flooding. The floods cost small and medium-sized enterprises an estimated £47 million, with indirect costs totalling £170 million.

The floods in Leeds were the worst since 1866. Leeds University, which has done some research into this issue, told my Committee that 60% of local businesses have been unable to obtain a quotation for insurance since last winter’s floods. We heard of one business whose excess had risen from £1,000 to £250,000 after the floods. We heard of another business whose buildings insurance premium rose 60%, to £10,000, and whose excess increased 40%, to £10,000, but it would get the insurance only if it stumped up £400,000 to build new flood defences. The Committee on Climate Change says that the economic viability of some areas is being threatened, and the way insurance companies are failing to rise to meet this risk and failing to stand with communities is putting whole parts of our country at risk of becoming economically unviable.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Has the hon. Lady taken a cursory glance at the other report we are discussing, which asserts that there is no market failure when it comes to providing affordable insurance for businesses at risk of flooding? If these excesses are not market failure, I wonder what is.

[Mary Creagh]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there is market failure in these areas. Businesses are encouraged to shop around, and there are some excellent community Flood Save schemes, where people try to get together to use market power to purchase insurance collectively, and one of those schemes is now up and running in Calderdale, but it should not have to come to that. We want to see insurance companies standing alongside communities. The insurance companies lobbied long and hard to mitigate their risk from climate change, and the Government set up the Flood Re scheme —another insurance tax on contents premiums and buildings premiums, with every homeowner in the country stumping up for the access risk so that the insurers do not have to pay it and can transfer it to the Government. Insurers need to cut businesses some slack and rise to meet some of these challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

To follow on from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), I have not seen this produced today, but I have in my hand the estimates book. The estimates for DEFRA, which we are supposed to be debating today, are contained within it. I must admit to feeling somewhat confused by today’s proceedings. As if Fridays in this place were not strange enough, today has been a real eye-opener. I have not heard any discussion surrounding the figures estimated for DEFRA, and I have heard no critical analysis of departmental spend within those figures. As my hon. Friend acknowledged to me and made clear, this is the stage at which we as Scottish MPs are supposed critically to analyse the estimates to deal with the consequences of policy and UK legislation, but there appears to be little, if no, discussion. However, I want to discuss a few points from the estimates within the books today, which I assume will be in order.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am afraid that, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not in order. I ask him to discuss the subject for debate stated on the Order Paper, which has been chosen by the Liaison Committee. This issue arose when the estimates were debated last year. I will be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman moves on to the subject that is on the Order Paper.

[Richard Arkless]

I was not here the last time the estimates were discussed. Am I not allowed to discuss the figures within the estimates; is that what the Chair is telling me?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Today we are specifically discussing flood prevention, not what is in the book to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are discussing flood prevention, which was chosen by the Liaison Committee. The point the hon. Gentleman makes was raised last year, and I am sure we can find other avenues to discuss it further, but right now the topic for debate is just flood prevention.

[Richard Arkless]

Needless to say, we will be taking these points to the appropriate arena, when done.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you give some clarification? The title of the motion on the Order Paper is, I accept:

“Supplementary Estimate: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Subject for debate: Future flood prevention)”

However, the text of the motion states:

“That, for the year ending with 31 March 2017, for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

(1) further resources, not exceeding £420,838,000 be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 946”,

which is the document that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) was speaking to. Is the ruling of the Chair that, in fact, the contents of HC 946 as they relate to DEFRA are not for debate in this estimates debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes, if the hon. Gentleman looks again at the Order Paper, he will see that the notes below—which are in very small print—state:

“This Estimate is to be considered in so far as it relates to future flood prevention (Resolution of 21 February).

The Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the above Motion will be deferred until 7.00 pm on Tuesday 28 February”.

That is the critical element in this regard.

[Richard Arkless]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In common with many Members, I represent a constituency that is susceptible to flooding and has flooded, quite dramatically, twice over the last three years. I have been interested in many of the points made by hon. Members; it has been a well-informed debate, with lots of excellent, pertinent points made.

The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is no longer in her place, talked about the stop-start nature of the process of flood management across the rest of the UK and about a lack of strategic planning, which has become apparent in this debate today. She talked about businesses being affected by flooding, and there are some specific issues that I questioned the Minister about before and to which she gave some helpful answers, which I will touch on later in my speech.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) support my calls and express some concern about the availability of affordable insurance to small businesses; I will mention that later. We know that the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) has a passion for trees and everything horticultural, and she talked a lot about land management and the contribution that land management techniques can make to reduce the risk of flooding.

One of the major debates in my constituency has been the extent to which land management techniques can significantly mitigate the risk of flooding. When towns in my constituency have flooded, we have found it very difficult to find an expert who could say that felling the trees, tidying the riverbanks or dredging a river would have made a significant difference to the risk of flooding. It appears that the one thing that contributes most to the risk of flooding, which is not really in the public’s mind, is the huge amount of rainfall. There is some way to go in the debate about, and public consciousness of, the things that contribute to the risk of flooding and the things that can mitigate it.

I was interested, as always, to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). She rightly talked about bringing people together, and all MPs with constituencies susceptible to flooding will have been impressed by how stakeholders and members of the public came together. It was humbling to see that in action. But I must say that she broke the House of Commons record for plugging her constituency and praising her Front Bench, all within a six-minute speech—that girl will go far.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross made an excellent speech and gave the House an excellent summary of the report. He focused on the contrast between the Committee’s experiences in Holland, which adopts a principle of proactivity and strategic management and regards flooding as a social issue, and the strategy in the UK, which seems unpredictable and tends to concentrate on managing consequences in emergencies. That tactic needs to change.

The Select Committee’s report is one of the relevant documents listed on the Order Paper—to which this debate is restricted—and there is a section on page 23 on business insurance. In many of the towns in my constituency, there are perhaps 30 to 40 small businesses on either side of the high street, which might on occasions be flooded. When those businesses try to get affordable insurance, they can often get a policy with manageable premiums but the excess is completely unmanageable. It is often £15,000 or more. If that main street were to flood again, none of those businesses would be able to pay the excess.

I am concerned to see the assessment on page 23 of the report, which states:

“Defra does not consider there to be a market failure in provision of appropriate business insurance for those located in flood risk areas.”

The report talks only about the cost and availability of policies; it does not discuss the excesses. Were manageable excesses among the criteria that the Department considered when it made the judgment that there had not been a market failure? I was surprised to read the figures from the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations that thought that only a small percentage of businesses had these problems. That is not my understanding of what is happening in my constituency. This is a very difficult issue that has the potential to put swathes of our high streets out of business. I accept the argument that participants in the Flood Re scheme should not be made to pay for businesses, but some other kind of scheme needs to be made available. There is a clear market failure here and it needs to be dealt with.

The approach in Scotland is not perfect, but it seems to be more advanced than in the rest of the UK. We have a statutory basis for our flood management plan. We passed the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act in 2009, which compelled all 32 authorities across Scotland to come up with flood management plans. They have all done so: 42 flood defences are in the pipeline and 80% of the money has been committed by the Scottish Government. Four of those schemes are in my constituency, and I look forward to the conclusion of the process in 2022, when all those flood defences will be built and we will be looking at the next round of strategic planning in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

What a “fentastic” idea. A design for the Boston barrier has been considered by the Environment Agency and is currently subject to a public inquiry under the Transport and Works Act Order. Alongside the famous Boston stump, it could be a compelling reason to ensure that we visit this special part of rural England. I personally extend my thanks to the Environment Agency, councils, emergency services and volunteers who helped to ensure that people were safe last weekend.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. Many small businesses across the UK that operate in flood risk areas are facing enormous flood insurance excesses. Will the Ministers please commit to persuading the Treasury to extend the Flood Re scheme for affordable insurance to small businesses? If there are floods again not only will individual companies go out of business; many high streets in my constituency might actually disappear.

Flooding: Ribble Valley

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

It is a great delight for me to have this opportunity, more than one year on, to reflect on what happened in the Ribble valley during the floods, to reflect on what progress has been made in terms of resilience, protection and prevention, and, indeed, to thank some of the people who, beyond the call of duty, came to help those who were in distress.

I remember that on Boxing day in 2015, I was at my sister’s house in Pontarddulais. Very early in the morning, I received a text message from a friend of mine, Robert Hayward, who has since been elevated to the House of Lords. He asked, “What’s happening in your constituency?” I sent him a text saying, “What do you mean?” He replied, “Floods.” There had been a flood in the Ribble valley just over a week earlier, so I thought that perhaps some footage was being shown of what had happened then. I did not think too much of it, but I went and switched on the television.

Sky News was being broadcast live from Whalley, one of my villages. The reporter was several feet underwater. I watched live footage of one of my constituents, an elderly lady, being carried from a small cottage—manhandled out of her property—to be taken to a safe place further up the road that the floods had not quite reached. My eyes were wide open, and I was aghast to see the condition of the main street through Whalley, but I had not realised that the flooding was much more extensive than that.

I called to my sister, “I’m going.” It was Boxing day, and I was due to stay for about four days, so she said, “What do you mean, you’re going?” I said, “I’m going to the Ribble valley.” She asked why, and I said, “Well, have a look at the TV and I think you’ll understand why.” She asked, “What can you do?” That was a great question, to be honest, but it was about being there. That was the answer: I had to be there. There was no other place I could be on that day.

I got into the car and drove for four-and-a-bit hours towards the Ribble valley. Coming off the M6, I would normally turn right, immediately towards Whalley, but I could not do that because the main road to the right off the motorway junction was flooded. I had to turn around and then use my local knowledge which was quite extensive, to work out another route through Preston.

First I dropped into Longridge, where there was an emergency centre in one of the village halls. I spoke to four people there. Nobody had reported there, because it is several miles away from Whalley, and I think it was just too far away. People were making their own arrangements, with some going to the Clitheroe golf club. The local school had said that it was available to take anybody, and of course neighbours were coming to the assistance of those in distress.

When I drove into Ribchester, an area that gets flooded from time to time, I went to have a look at the River Ribble from not far from my local church, St Wilfrid’s. That is an extensive area. I have to say that my mouth dropped open, as I had never, ever seen that river so high. If it had risen just another few inches, it would have broken its banks into the main street in Ribchester. When I talked to one of the local residents, he said, “I was waiting for it to go one step further before I started moving my furniture and possessions from the bottom to the top floor.”

I then went on to the Ribchester Arms pub. As it was Boxing day, it was ready to take in all the bookings it had for that day, but of course it could not open at all because it was completely flooded. The landlord and landlady were on the top floor. The firemen were already there, pumping water away from one electrical substation to make sure that it was still operational, so there were still lights on at the top of the pub. That pub was closed for several weeks. One thinks of the on-costs to that pub of keeping on the labour and so forth, never mind the colossal cost of the waste of all the food, the equipment that was damaged and the loss of trade during that period.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman’s heartfelt and passionate speech reminds me of what happened in my constituency a year ago. On the subject of businesses being affected by floods, many businesses in Newton Stewart in my constituency now face excesses of more than £15,000 and cannot get cost-effective insurance. Will he join me in trying to persuade the Association of British Insurers to extend the Flood Re scheme to small businesses? At present that scheme covers only individuals, so it is of no solace to small businesses that stand on the edge of a precipice.

[Mr Evans]

I am more than happy to do that. In fact, I have made representations to Mark Hoban, who is in charge of the Flood Re scheme. I believe that we should extend that scheme to businesses. I have no doubt at all that the premiums for a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises that are prone to flooding or that have made claims will go through the roof. If we think it is a good idea to spread the risk for domestic premises, as we have done through the Flood Re scheme, which is very good indeed, I cannot see any good reason not to extend that to businesses as well. I will talk a bit later about one of my businesses, which has been hit in more ways than one. I am delighted to see you now in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that your constituency also experienced bad flooding. Indeed, the flooding affected a number of areas, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), who is also in the Chamber.

I must praise the brilliant emergency services for all the work that they did. In the late hours of Christmas night and early hours of Boxing day, members of the Army were knocking on doors. They already knew what was going to happen, so they were alerting people so that they could either get out and secure their premises, or get their possessions upstairs if they could. They were working during the time when other people were celebrating with their families, so I have absolute praise for them for everything they did, as well as for the early flood warning system, which clearly was working.

I then went down into Whalley, which had been featured on the television for most of that day. A lot of the water had subsided by that time—it was several hours on—but my goodness me, the damage that had been done during those hours was absolutely phenomenal. It was not just the main road that was affected, but several streets back on both sides. I chatted to Norman Atty, the landlord of the Dog Inn, who was able to tell me all the things that had happened that day. I then went from Whalley through Grindleton towards another village way on the other side of the constituency, but I had to turn my car around when I got there because I could not distinguish the road from the river. The water was so high that I thought that if I went any further, I would have been adding to the problems, because my car would be stuck—it is not a 4x4. I therefore reversed back and went home.

I got up the next morning and went back into Whalley, where the salvage operation had begun. My goodness me! It was heart-warming beyond belief to see the volunteers who had given up their Christmas to help their neighbours. I also heard a story about a group of four men who were travelling up to Scotland for Hogmanay—they were going pretty early by the sound of it—and heard what had happened in Whalley. They drove off the M6 and turned up in the village. They picked a house at random and helped the people there to clear their possessions out on to the street and into skips. They then got back into their car and continued their holiday. What fantastic people!

Other people had had the good sense to get money and drive into the Ribble valley and hand it out to families. Some people would have been without money, and they would have lost all their food. Perhaps they lived alone, or perhaps they had spent all their money at Christmas and had no access to money. Those people giving out money provided a lifeline. They did not need to do it, but they did. People came from all over the area to help. For example, charities in Blackburn gave assistance. It was a colossal operation to help people to get all their food and possessions out of their kitchens and living rooms. I also pay tribute to the skip operators who managed to get skips in on a regular basis, and to the police, who managed to set up a one-way system through the village. I have been talking about all the great things that people did to help, but now and again we had “flood tourists”, who decided to come in just to have a look. They thought it was rather clever to drive through the water, which resulted in water splashing into businesses that had already suffered greatly. Those people were really thoughtless and careless.

I remember talking to one chap, Andrew Ronnan, who has done tremendous work as a volunteer. He told me, “I don’t know what I was expecting to do on the day after Boxing day, but it wasn’t manhandling a piano into a skip.” That was what he ended up doing. The volunteers were absolutely superb. They were led by Gillian Darbyshire, the president of the Whalley and District Lions club, and she was joined by some of her friends, including Kellie Hughes, who runs the hairdresser’s shop. Her shop was badly hit—it is still being repaired—but her resilience has been absolutely superb. Anyway, she did not cut hair for a few days. She went straight across to the village hall, which was requisitioned, where people turned up to give electrical goods, blankets and food. Hot coffee and food were served there. It was quite amazing. Electricians gave up their time to come in and test all the electrical goods to make sure that no faulty items were handed out. Other volunteers included Mags Twist and Katie Blezard—I am afraid that I am going to forget some of the people—and even the Dog Inn was giving out coffee and sandwiches to the volunteers who were coming in to help.

Another electrician was going around people’s houses and helping. Of course, people from the electricity board also came in to switch people off and ensure that everything was safe before getting them switched back on. One of the volunteers had training in mental health issues, which was useful because some people were tipped over the edge by the flood. One can understand why when they were seeing their houses being destroyed on Boxing day. This person was able to talk a man out of his bedroom and get him downstairs so that he could finally get assistance. We need to pay some attention in that area when we think about what actions to take after future floods. I also pay tribute to Marshal Scott, the chief executive of Ribble Valley Borough Council, who was on the scene from Boxing day night onwards. The council moved many officers from the county offices in Clitheroe into Whalley and operated from the village hall. Marshal Scott was there every day, giving assistance to people who badly needed it.

Part of the problem was that some businesses and homes had been hit just a week before, when a culvert became blocked and water rushed down. Funnily enough, Andrew Ronnan had already called some locals together to see what they could do, because they realised that there would be real problems if the river burst its banks. Well, we had real problems, but they brought the community together.

One area that was badly damaged included the houses off Calder Vale. The road there is unadopted, so it was already rough, but that road now has a proper surface thanks to Gillian Darbyshire and the Whalley and District Lions club, which helped to raise more than £100,000, which was matched with donations from the Freemasons and others. In fact, it is now one of the best roads in the Ribble valley—it is absolutely superb. I could not believe it when I went down there the other day. I thought, “Wow. Look at that. That’s what happens when a community works together,” so I pay tribute to Gillian for leading the volunteers.

One chap called Allan Elliott, whom I went to see just the other day, has his house at the back of Calder Vale. One third of his garden was washed away, his car was a complete write-off and, of course, the house was badly damaged. One would have hoped that the Environment Agency would have looked at the damage and given a bit more assistance than it did, but he has had to spend thousands of pounds of his own money to shore up the garden to ensure that it will be resilient against any further rises in river flow.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kinahan]

I certainly agree. I would like to see the RSPB perhaps being less political and getting more involved in working with all of us.

I think I have made my point. We should work together. We have the skills and we have the regulations. Let us make them work and listen to one another.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

There seems to be a common concern on both sides of this debate, which is criminality. Both sides would say that criminality is wrong for conservation purposes. On that point, would those who oppose a ban on grouse shooting support vicarious liability, to make landowners responsible for criminality on their land? Is that not a potential solution we could all work together on?

[Danny Kinahan]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but all sorts of problems come with vicarious responsibility, such as the cost of insurance and of letting people on to one’s land. That needs to be carefully looked at, and we need to find out what everyone thinks about it. Initially, I do not think it is the right way forward.

Let us learn from one another, as a partnership. Thank you for letting me speak, Mr Davies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

As many will know, driven grouse shooting is a really important aspect of the economy and rural community life in counties such as North Yorkshire. It is so pleasing to see so many honourable colleagues here from our county this afternoon.

Clearly, we have to look at both sides of any argument, but I believe that the petition to ban driven grouse shooting simply does not stand up to scrutiny, and it does not seem to have ignited the enthusiasm of many Members who support the ban to speak here today. The economic impact of banning driven grouse shooting would be disastrous. There are estimates that revenue from walked-up grouse shooting would be less than 10% of that gained by driven grouse shooting. Many grouse moors rely on the sale of grouse shooting days for their economic survival.

[Richard Arkless]

Since I was elected to this place, economics has been used to justify dropping bombs, supplying arms, withdrawing tax credits and now killing birds. Does this place ever come down on the side of morality versus economics, or will it always be the case that if it makes a few quid, it is okay with the Tories?

[Nigel Adams]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but it is probably one of the most nonsensical I have heard in this Chamber in the six years that I have had the pleasure of being here.

The petition’s proposals would result in a huge number of job losses. Grouse shooting supports more than 1,500 full-time jobs and many more part-time jobs, so its proposals would be very damaging. In many cases, these are quality jobs, with most paying above minimum wage and with the benefits of working in a beautiful natural environment. Businesses related to or dependent on grouse shooting in the north of England also generate more local jobs and tens of millions of pounds of income, mostly to small and family-owned businesses. This industry is reasonably run and already heavily regulated, and I do not support a further threat to the jobs that are created.

Flooding

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

As the Member of Parliament for Dumfries and Galloway, a constituency badly affected by storms Desmond and Frank, I am honoured to be able to give my constituents a voice in this place today, but before I speak about the flooding impact in Scotland and the Scottish Government’s response, the incredible work of the emergency services and the unbelievable resilience of local communities, I wish to deal with the wording of the motion put before the House today.

As a new Member of this place—and new to politics, thankfully—I have been astounded at the procession of ideologically based legislation from the Conservative Government. I have searched long and hard for an evidence base to much of what they suggested, and have searched in vain. I have also been completely dismayed at the amount of misinformed mud-slinging that goes on with these motions devised by the Labour party—in particular the needless pops at the Scottish Government in circumstances where they are actually performing marginally better. We thought Labour would have learned a lesson from the disastrous police debate motion a few weeks ago.

The mud slung at my party and the Scottish Government in this motion is to criticise the 6% cut to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency budget for next year. I will deal with that head-on in a moment, but first I want to make one thing explicitly clear. It relates to the tone of this debate: my constituents deserve better; your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, deserve better; all of our constituents deserve better. They do not care, when they are clearing up the sewage and debris from the front room, about the mud-slinging and political points-scoring in this Chamber. They want to know what we can do to help, they want to know that we care about their plight, and they want to know we are on top of the processes and plans, to ensure we can minimise the risk of severe flooding in the future. But there is a recognition, in light of factors such as global warming, that we may never be able to devise defences and plans capable of completely eliminating flood damage when mother nature decides to sneeze as heavily as she did this month.

[John Woodcock]

What the hon. Gentleman says about his constituents is clearly heartfelt, but they are surely concerned—I speak for my mother, who is one of them—about the 6% cut that the Scottish Government are imposing on flood defences. Is he really going to defend that? [Interruption.] Is he going to defend the cut to SEPA, or is he going to—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not seem to be able to continue as SNP Members are chuntering so much. I am trying to speak over them, but they are so noisy that I cannot seem to get a word in edgeways. [Interruption.]

[John Woodcock]

Why is the hon. Gentleman defending the 6% cut to SEPA?

[Richard Arkless]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will, as I just intimated—if he had opened his ears, he may have heard—deal with that point head-on in a few moments. In relation to his mother, if she is a constituent of mine, please offer her our services to help her in any way we possibly can.

[John Woodcock]

What did the hon. Gentleman say about my mother?

[Richard Arkless]

I was politely offering the hon. Gentleman my office’s assistance if his mother has been affected by the floods, and I do so with the utmost sincerity.

The wording of the motion in relation to Scotland is as follows: it states that the House

“notes with concern the recent decision…to impose a six per cent cut on funding to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency”,

yet in the last three calendar years culminating in this year there has actually been a cash increase in SEPA funding from £36.4 million in 2012-13 to £39 million in 2015-16. The 6% cut pertains to next year—to the future—and has not affected in any way Scotland’s ability to deal with the travesty of the last week or two. May I remind all colleagues that all budgets across the UK have had to stomach a cut at some level?

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

I am interested to hear that the cut is for next year. Is that because the hon. Gentleman believes that there is less risk of a flood next year?

[Richard Arkless]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, our budget is set by Westminster, not by us. If he bears with me, perhaps I will enlighten him a little bit more.

I am sure that all colleagues will understand that all Departments have had to take a cut of some description since the current UK Government have had a say. The Scottish Government have attempted to protect the SEPA budget in the fairest way possible, while still endeavouring to offer immediate assistance and permanent solutions to all those who have been affected by flooding.

A further point that I should make clear is that SEPA is not responsible for flood prevention in Scotland, which is the responsibility of local authorities with the support of the Scottish Government. We believe in Scotland that local authorities are best placed to devise flood protection, and the Scottish Government will support them in any way they possibly can. Indeed, the Scottish Environment Minister told me recently that our Government have never refused funding for a flood defence on the basis of cost. Other elements of flood spending, such as on the Scottish flood forecasting service, are protected in their entirety until 2020 and will not be subject to any cuts. Good flood defence is not only about how much is spent but about how we choose to spend it.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

As a victim of the floods in 2013 in west Kent, I am extremely aware of the money that has been spent on flood defences by the British Government and around the whole UK. I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman claim, somewhat bizarrely, that nothing has been refused to anywhere in Scotland on the grounds of funding. Is there an enormous sack of cash into which the Scottish people can dip for money when the British people in the rest of these islands are struggling to pay for what they need?

[Richard Arkless]

Again, had I been given some forbearance and patience, an answer to that question might have come up soon. I beg the hon. Gentleman to stay patient.

The cuts to SEPA’s budget planned for next year have to be seen in their full and proper context. The Scottish Government’s top priority is the reduction of flooding across risk areas, which was why the Scottish Parliament passed the Flood Risk Management Act 2009. One of its main requirements was the production of a flood risk management strategy for the whole of Scotland, and we now have 14 local strategies. They are all about forward planning, with the end aim of minimising flood damage. As a result of the Act, we now have 42 proposed flood defence protection schemes to cover the period 2016 to 2021. They will cost an estimated £235 million, which the Scottish Government have agreed to finance.

Under the Act, flood prevention schemes can proceed to approval without the rubber stamp of Scottish Ministers, giving local authorities full responsibility and authority to implement them under a streamlined process. We believe that those decisions should be taken locally, not least because a flood defence scheme requires significant construction in and around riverbanks, which are often the focal point of a community. Not only do engineering solutions have to be found, but buy-in from local communities is essential. Communities care about their riverbanks, and plans must take account of that. In Dumfries, there are many objections to the local council’s plan for an earth bund, which would remove car parking and views at the river. The council is now under severe pressure to ensure that the voices of local people are heard in the debate.

As part of our flood preparation in Scotland, the Scottish flood forecasting service has done an excellent job of providing reliable information to relevant authorities in good time. In actioning the Bellwin scheme, the Deputy First Minister has committed the Scottish Government to covering any additional local authority costs. As the House will understand, the scheme sets a threshold beyond which the Scottish Government guarantee to cover the costs of emergencies. Following Storm Desmond in December, the Scottish Government provided £3.94 million to the most affected local authority areas, including in my constituency, to help them support flood-hit households and businesses. That funding will go to affected local authorities as a specific grant in this financial year, and they will be able to provide each flood-affected household or business with a grant of up to £1,500, which is under review. That grant is available to reimburse people for the cost of not receiving the full benefit of services that they pay for through council tax or rates while they are absent from their home or their business cannot trade. It can also be used to protect homes and businesses against future floods by installing new flood barriers or by carrying out flood-resilient repairs.

The Scottish Government have recently legislated to give councils the power to reduce and remit bills, which can be used to target support to businesses in areas affected by flooding. The Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, announced in the Scottish Parliament yesterday that Scottish councils have a new power to relieve households devastated in the flooding from council tax and small business rates. They are considering what further help they can give.

A few days before Christmas, Dumfries and Galloway held its breath as weather experts indicated that the region would be the next one hit by severe flooding as a result of Storm Frank. We had witnessed the devastation caused by Storm Desmond to our neighbours and friends in Cumbria and the borders. In the first wave of flooding, Dumfries was flooded but the rest of Dumfries and Galloway managed to escape largely unscathed. We watched as Hawick, Appleby, Penrith, Carlisle, Keswick and Cockermouth, to name but a few, battled against the flow of water that was sadly insurmountable.

The predictions for Storm Frank made for worse reading and, as it approached, we prepared. SEPA and the Met Office co-ordinated information about expected rainfall in risk areas and issued details of areas and addresses to be evacuated.

[Pete Wishart]

Once Storm Frank had been to Dumfries and Galloway, it came further north-eastwards to Perthshire. In my constituency, I have the biggest and most extensive river system in the whole UK—the biggest flow of water in any community of the UK flows through the heart of Perth. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend would like to pay tribute to the local authority staff and the emergency services who ensured that cities such as mine were adequately protected and that the flood defences held up. They did a remarkable job and I am sure my hon. Friend would like to congratulate them too.

[Richard Arkless]

Seeing the work and dedication of the emergency services was probably one of the most humbling experiences of my entire life. I will touch on that before I close my remarks.

The local authorities and emergency services swung into action. Properties were knocked and evacuated, with the focus on moving the elderly and the vulnerable. Warnings of what was to come were everywhere. In particular, social media played an enormously valuable part. Posts and tweets from SEPA, the local authority, the police, the emergency services and elected Members meant that people were highly informed. In the time I spent visiting those affected, I did not hear one complaint about the warning system or the plans put in place. That co-ordinated approach meant we could all prepare as best we could.

I was incredibly impressed by the actions of all engaged in that co-ordinated response. Particular thanks go to Dumfries and Galloway Council, SEPA and all the emergency services, as well as to volunteers both on the ground and stationed at the respite centres that were set up. Without them, that co-ordinated effort and warning system, things would have been immeasurably worse.

On 30 December, we awoke to the news of the devastation. I was very concerned to hear that the high street in Newton Stewart was under more than a foot of water and that cars were submerged in car parks on the banks of the River Cree. High tide was expected at 2 pm, so I put my wellies on and drove to see it for myself. I can assure Members that there a few more surreal moments than walking up a deserted main street of a small town they know so well and seeing sandbags piled at shop entrances, wading through over a foot of water. It was bizarre.

I met a chap called Paul Da Prato from Cunningham’s in Newton Stewart. He was fighting back tears as he showed me the flooding in his properties. It was very moving. All that we could do was wait for the water to recede so the damage could be assessed. Thankfully, nobody was hurt and nobody was left stranded.

The next day, as the water receded and shop owners began to clear their premises, I was delighted that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon joined me in Newton Stewart. She spent almost three hours going from shop to shop to offer her support. I did likewise, to offer the support of my office in any way we could provide it.

Although Newton Stewart—for once, ironically—grabbed the headlines, many more towns and villages in Dumfries and Galloway were affected by the flooding.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The third party spokesman—I highlight that the Scottish National party is the third party—has now been speaking for as long as the Minister chose to speak. What guidance was given to the third party on the length of speech it should give in a limited-time debate on an Opposition day?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) was coming to the conclusion of his speech anyway but, as the third party, no time limit is imposed, so he is perfectly at liberty to speak for as long as he wants. Many interventions were accepted, which lengthens speeches. I will allow him to finish his speech.

[Richard Arkless]

In a sense, I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). This is a very energised debate—[Interruption.] And I am coming to the end of my speech, so the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) should not have to wait too much longer.

What we have in Dumfries and Galloway—I imagine that this is replicated UK-wide—is the resilience of our people. I was struck that café owners trawled the streets, trying to give people food—but no one was hungry. I was amazed that residents affected were in competition with each other to say, “Och wur fine, Richard,” when really they were not. We should never take that resilience for granted and it should never diminish our responsibility to deal with what I think is a new problem for a new generation. The weather is not going to get any better, so we must up the ante to ensure that our communities are protected in the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[John Mc Nally]

I can give the hon. Gentleman a brief answer, but I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) will answer that later. The Scottish Government have developed a policy direction for decisions on woodland removal in Scotland and will apply the policy to decisions within the areas of competence. Unlike England, Scotland has an ancient woodland inventory, to which the hon. Member for Taunton Deane referred. We are making progress. There is a lot more information to read, which I advise hon. Members to do. We can all learn lessons from one another. This is not a political matter; it is about doing the best we can.

Within my constituency, more than 7.5% of the ancient woodland is under threat, while more than 40% of constituents live near woodland. That amounts to only 15.6% of woodland, old and new, which is quite scary. However, the quantity of ancient woodland under threat is not the only issue; the irreplaceable nature of that woodland is the significant point. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane mentioned a Fortingall tree earlier of between 3,000 and 3,500 years old, which I have visited many times. It is believed that Pontius Pilate was born underneath it—never let the facts get in the way of the truth. In Scotland, we define ancient woodland as having existed since around 1750 AD, so what takes minutes to cut down takes centuries to grow. The loss is immeasurable; imagine cutting down the Fortingall tree.

Existing protection for ancient woodland is insufficient. The UK Government have stated on many occasions their support for and appreciation of the value of ancient woodland and the need to protect it. In Scotland, as I mentioned, we are making significant efforts to change that and address these problems, although we are not without our problems. Unlike many precious habitats, however, ancient woodland is not a statutory designation in law and therefore suffers from a lack of protection.

The Minister responsible for forestry, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), for whom I have a lot of time—he is an excellent guy who knows his brief exceedingly well—recently admitted:

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”.

That is quite a statement.

Paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework allows for the destruction or loss of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees if

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.

That is a total contradiction, because we can never get that woodland back. As a result of that loophole, hundreds of ancient woods and trees are lost or threatened in the planning system every year. Since the NPPF was introduced in March 2012, more than 40 ancient woods across the UK have suffered loss or damage from development. Hundreds more ancient woods are at risk within areas of land allocated for development through site allocations as part of local plans. As admitted by the Forestry Minister under the previous Administration, the Government do not collect data relating to the loss of trees and woods, so a complete picture of the scale of losses in any given year is currently impossible—I totally agree with the hon. Member for Taunton Deane on that.

In December last year, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government called for ancient woodland to be awarded the same level of protection as designated heritage assets—that includes the house owned by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane. The Committee also called for work to be undertaken to increase the number of ancient woods with statutory designations, to further increase protection. However, in response to the Committee’s report, the Government ruled out changing the wording, arguing that

“existing protection for ancient woodland in the Framework is strong and it is very clear that development of these areas should be avoided.”

Again, that seems a wee bit contradictory. I urge the Government to follow the Communities and Local Government Committee’s recommendations.

In addition to the previously mentioned comments, the Forestry Minister went on to say that

“an enormous amount of our ancient woodland is already protected within our national parks and within AONBs. A lot of it is covered by natural sites under European legislation and a lot of it is protected under SSSI legislation.”

In a response to a parliamentary question on 23 November, corrected on 24 November, the Forestry Minister set out how much ancient woodland is in fact located within designated areas:

“Natural England estimates that 15% of ancient woodland is located within national parks and 30% is located within areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs). In national parks, 29% of this woodland has site of special scientific interest (SSSI) status; in AONBs, 13% of this woodland has SSSI status.”

Unfortunately, while some ancient woodland is indeed located within a national park or area of outstanding natural beauty, that is simply not good enough protection to ensure ancient woodland is not impacted by or lost to development. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who mentioned the issue of fracking in such areas.

The HS2 route, as has been mentioned, is a notable example of woodland located within designated areas being threatened by development. Although I do not know it, the Chilterns is an area of outstanding natural beauty, well known throughout the world. Another example provided by the Woodland Trust is a hydroelectric scheme currently being proposed in north Wales at Fairy Glen near Betws-y-Coed—are there any Welsh Members here?

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

You got away with it.

[John Mc Nally]

Thanks. No one can contradict me.

The scheme threatens to damage the ancient woodland located in the Snowdonia national park. The Cairngorms national park local development plan expressly backs potential development sites that could cause damage to ancient woodland, including at An Camas Mòr, Carrbridge and Nethy Bridge. Indeed, in 2014 the installation of a micro-hydroelectric turbine in the Cairngorms was approved, which could also damage ancient woodland.

I could go on and list more examples of ancient woodlands in designated areas that have been removed or are threatened by development. I think everyone in the room shares the concerns of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane about such matters, and I go along with her too. I am happy to support her as best I possibly can. I had more to say, but I think I have spoken for long enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

Mr Walker, you have just missed a consensual and uplifting debate. Mr Turner and I sit on the European Scrutiny Committee, and if only that Committee were equally consensual and uplifting on occasion.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally)—he has gone off to catch a train, and not of the high-speed variety—on securing this debate, which has been a most uplifting experience. The hon. Lady kicked us off with a truly evocative and passionate speech that drove home why we are having this debate: the power, beauty and importance of our natural environment. She outlined a powerful case for special recognition for ancient woodland and called for a much more sensible approach.

The good news is that we have an eminently sensible Minister before us today—as the Scottish National party’s DEFRA spokesman, I am used to standing up and making requests of him—although it is unfortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has responsibility for forests, could not be here today. He is my neighbouring MP, and he has a very valid reason for not being here, because of the level of flooding in his constituency, but I am sure he would be delighted for the Minister, in his absence, to commit him heavily to far greater protection of our ancient woodland. I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk told us a lot about his history and the role of woodland in his life and in his community. I sense that he has many a personal story of his courting days beneath the canopy that perhaps might be better exchanged in the Sports and Social than in Westminster Hall, but he made a number of excellent supportive points, including highlighting one or two things that we specifically do in Scotland.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) gave a wonderful overview of the central role that woodland can play in our communities when protected and fostered. She also highlighted the dangers of HS2 and the impact it could have on our landscape if we get our priorities wrong. She also put in a most excellent, yet shameless, plug for a community cause in her constituency, which is always a good way to end a week in Westminster.

The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) did something that I would not have thought possible, which was to get Little Red Riding Hood and Snow White into a speech. That set the tone for another excellent, evocative and moving contribution. I apologise to the following two speakers because a different call of nature meant that I missed elements of their speeches. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) made an important point about visiting a woodland site, and those of us who are involved in setting policy should always remember to go and understand the beauty and impact of such environments first hand—I thank her for making that point. I apologise to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for missing the start of his speech, but he correctly reflected on the consensual nature of this debate and on the psychological benefits of the very woodland that we are discussing today, regardless of whether we measure it in feet, metres or yards.

Across the country, our ancient woodlands are more than just a component of our landscape; they are part of its very soul. They go beyond living history; as we have heard, their importance to biodiversity makes them part of our breathing history too. Our connection with them is long, deep and emotional. Writing in 1936, slightly before my time, the chronicler Arthur Mee talked of our old trees in the introductory volume to his great book series “The King’s England”:

“Silent sentinels of the simple pageant of our nation’s life, they saw the knight come back from the Holy Land…they gave their bows to the men who fought at Agincourt.”

Those words are of their time, but they convey the affection that we all still feel for our woodlands, which cover 500,000 hectares, or just 2% of the UK. Roughly half that coverage needs restoration to safeguard its cultural and natural heritage for future generations. In Scotland, the geographical area taken up is rather less—1% of the land is covered by native species—but the Scottish tree is just as important and loved as the English, Welsh or Northern Irish one. That reminds me: a Northern Ireland Member asked me to point out—if hon. Members will allow me a slight educational aside—that the wonderful ancient trees that we witness on “Game of Thrones” are in Northern Ireland.

Ancient woodland is just that: very old indeed. As we have heard, the Fortingall yew in Perthshire is perhaps the oldest tree in the UK. Modern experts estimate it to be between 2,000 and 3,000 years old, but some think it could be far older, possibly even 5,000 years old. I hope that we never decide to cut it to find out for sure. Our woodlands have been under threat for almost as long as humankind has populated Scotland, or indeed other parts of the UK. By the year 82, at the time of Scotland’s invasion by the Roman legions, at least half had disappeared due to the demands of early agriculture. Since then, weather conditions have been cooler and wetter, meaning that much of the woodland has been replaced by peatland. During the 17th and 18th centuries, many of the remaining woods were heavily exploited for timber, charcoal and tanbark.

It is clear that our ancient woodlands have always faced a fragile and precarious existence. As speakers in this debate have pointed out, the risk of erosion of that valuable heritage continues, most particularly because of urban growth and transport schemes. New road developments and High Speed 2 pose ongoing threats, although the latter does not apply in Scotland. Future high-speed rail in particular may well be damaging; the Woodland Trust suggests that it will result in direct loss to 39 ancient woodlands and damage to 23 sites. Woodlands present remarkably diverse ecosystems, are hugely valued for their wildlife and are of significant cultural value. Plus, of course, they are integral parts of our landscapes and natural vistas of often compelling beauty. Their role in raising the human spirit cannot be underestimated.

It has been estimated that some 28,000 hectares of ancient woodland have been lost since the 1930s. That is a huge impoverishment in every way. The one bit of good news is that it is probably harder than ever for developers and farming interests to exploit our remaining assets. However, it is not impossible, and I sincerely hope that Government plans to allow developers to build in the green belt will not lead to cherry-picking of the best sites and new threats to our woodland heritage. It is also a matter of concern that there is no central Government database of ancient woodland, and that no recent analysis has been undertaken of how much has been lost. That needs to be addressed.

North of the border, forestry is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and ancient woodland is defined as an area that has been wooded continuously since 1750. As in England, there is no statutory protection, but there is a clear intent to preserve if at all possible.

[Richard Arkless]

Therein lies the difference in approach between the UK and Scotland. In the jurisdiction of Scotland, which prefers statutory certainty to convention and presumption, it is actually a series of conventions and presumptions that give planning authorities more tools to resist the felling of ancient woodlands. The Scottish Government produce planning guidance and a whole range of other documents. Does my hon. Friend agree—I say this in a spirit of cross-party co-operation—that even if the Government are not minded to confer statutory protection on ancient woodlands, there are a series of other techniques that could be used?