Environment Bill (First sitting)

Richard Graham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q But you would also support interim targets further downstream?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: We definitely support strengthening the targets. This is something we have discussed a lot in our group, and there are slightly different views of exactly how you do it. Some people would support the targets’ being legally binding, and others say that the final targets should be legally binding, but on the interim targets there needs to be more transparency. Then, if an interim target is not met, it could be that it triggers more of a reporting process, where the Government say, “We have missed the interim target. This is why, and this is what we’re doing about it,” rather than their being legally binding.

Potentially, if you made those interim targets legally binding, it could have perverse effects. Government might be a little less ambitious in setting interim targets, because it is always harder to know exactly what you are going to be able to do in the shorter term, particularly when some things require a lot of capital investment. If the target is to increase recycling rates, that requires a lot of capital investment or whatever.

There are some questions about exactly how you would set those interim targets. Because they are nearer term, it is more likely that the same Government will be in power when they are met, so what you do not want is for them to end up being very unambitious in setting the targets. A transparency mechanism would certainly be very good.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Q Can I come back to Mr Baxter first? In the brief you gave us before this sitting began, you mentioned two ways that you thought the Bill could be improved. Although you raised earlier the importance of the selection or election of the OEP chairman and so on, your focus in the written evidence was more on structural issues. Could you flesh out what you meant by

“enhancing the coherence between the different governance elements so they are mutually supportive and aligned to drive environmental improvement to a common purpose”?

That sounds like management-speak. Can you try to bring it alive and explain what you really have in mind and what the benefits of it are?

Martin Baxter: Certainly. There are three key elements in the governance section of the Bill. First is the process for setting legally binding targets, and underpinning that is the significant improvement test in the natural environment. The environmental principles have a slightly different objective, on environmental protection and sustainable development. The Office for Environmental Protection has a different set of objectives as well. We think there is a real opportunity to set a common purpose in terms of clear objectives, as Ed has outlined, and to point all aspects of the governance process into achieving those. That is where we think you could get far greater coherence and cohesion between the different elements.

[Richard Graham]

Q Can I just explore that a bit more? On page 13, in part 1, the principle objective of the OEP is pretty clear:

“to contribute to—

(a) environmental protection, and

(b) the improvement of the natural environment.”

Page 1 of the Bill is about making provision to improve the natural environment and environmental protection. Those two seem to be very closely aligned, are then not?

Martin Baxter: In part, they are, but they could be further brought together. The real test of the targets and the EIPs is whether significant environmental improvement is being met. It is that test that underlies why we are setting targets and it forms the basis on which environmental principles will be applied, potentially, and also the role of the OEP. We think that could provide greater cohesion, via all things pointing to that common purpose.

[Richard Graham]

Q Mr Lockhart-Mummery, you said early on that the Bill needed clear objectives at the beginning. Given what Mr Baxter has just said, do I take it that you want to see a fleshed-out opening paragraph that talks about not just improving the natural environment but what the benefits that we are looking for from that should be?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: Exactly. Improving the natural environment is a good start. That could be clearer. For example, improving health is not there clearly in “improving the natural environment”, yet quite a lot that we would want to do—improving air quality, nature and so forth—is about health. Being really clear that this is also about health and wellbeing is important. Then there is sustainable resource use. At the moment, there is a big focus on single-use plastics, very rightly. If, in the very short term, we only thought about single-use plastics, we would not necessarily drive holistic sustainability overall. We might rush out of plastics into aluminium or other things, whereas what we really want to know is, right at the top, that this is about using the resources that we have sustainably. If that is clear at the top of the Bill, everything drives that. We do not take siloed short-term decisions, but we are clear that when we are setting targets we are looking to use our resources sustainably overall to contribute to a healthy, resilient, biodiverse natural environment, to health and to wellbeing for everyone. Those three objectives capture almost everything you could want to do through this Bill, alongside decarbonisation, which is the territory of the Climate Change Act 2008, but both are mutually supportive.

[Richard Graham]

Q That sounds as if what both of you are saying is that you want to see an introductory paragraph that lays out, before the stuff that is quite process-y, the benefits that we are trying to drive out through this Environment Bill a bit more clearly.

Ms Norberg, your earlier statement was slightly different. It was less on the ambitions of what the output would be and more on further improvements to strengthen the regulatory framework and the target-setting process. There is quite a lot of detail in terms of the targets and interim targets, is there not? How much more process can a Bill really have?

Signe Norberg: I would begin by saying that we also support Broadway’s ask around an objective. We thoroughly support that because we think it gives the long-term direction—which is set out here, but an objective would provide a little more detail. In terms of the processes around interim targets and the target-setting process, this is not so much about adding in more process—as you say, what we have is already quite a heavy process document—but more about clarifying some aspects, which would be quite welcome. We have touched a little today on the interim targets. It is not about changing them but about maybe clarifying that when intermediate targets look to be off track, there is recourse to put them back on track or the Secretary of State looks at how we will get back on track by updating them. There is a little bit there, but this is about adding further language to clarify a point like that. This is not about adding further process; it is more about adding clarification.

[The Chair]

Q Thank you very much. Mr Graham, I am conscious of the fact that there are a number of other Members who want to come in. I cannot allow one Member to dominate the entire proceedings.

I am going to do something now that I should have done at the beginning—I apologise for this. Before I bring in Deidre Brock, will Ms Norberg and one or others of you gentlemen, very briefly, identify whose interests you represent?

Signe Norberg: We represent an alliance of businesses, non-governmental organisations and academic institutions. They cover several different industries, work across economies and have scale. We look at their specific industries. All of that comes together to create a holistic environment for businesses and the natural environmental flow.

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: The Broadway Initiative brings together the mainstream business organisations across sectors from the Federation of Small Businesses to the CBI, as well as groups covering each important sector that touches on the environment. That is our core group. We also work with professional bodies such as the IEMA and academic bodies, and we work closely with environmental groups. We are committed to the outcomes committed to by the Government through the 25-year plan and net zero. We are keen to explore how we can really make that work through the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

Q Mr Poole, you spoke a lot about trust and transparency, and the Bill has a careful balance between detail and direction, but a lot of details will be prescribed through secondary legislation. I just wanted to garner your opinions on the importance of public consultation, so that we can garner expert views to develop detailed policies through secondary legislation.

Andrew Poole: I come back to the point I keep making, which is that small businesses are signed up to this—in the broad concept. They want to do the right thing for the environment. They are human beings. What is increasingly important is that they want to demonstrate to their customers that they are doing the right thing. They are aligned with the broad concept of the Bill.

When it comes to those granular details, that is obviously what is going to make or break the Bill. Government must see small businesses as a partner for delivery at every stage where those decision have to be made. I suggest that the outcomes of this Bill will not be achieved without a fully engaged small business community playing a very active role in it. It is a plea to policy makers and legislators that small business views are taken into account fully when those decisions get made, at each stage.

[Richard Graham]

Q Can I come back, Mr Curtois, to your earlier point that you thought there was masses in the Bill in terms of recycling, but less on residual waste and how that should be treated. What would you hope to see in the Bill that would cover that?

Martin Curtois: The situation in the UK in terms of residual waste is that it is virtually impossible to export refuse-derived fuel now in a viable way, because particularly in mainland Europe the cost of that is making it prohibitive. For obvious reasons, landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, and from what I can see from the resources and waste strategy the overall aim is to prevent waste where possible, recycle more and landfill next to nothing.

So we have got to recognise that even though recycling will hopefully continue to go up—ultimately I think the aim is to get, possibly, to 65%—there is something that has not yet really been covered in depth in the resources and waste strategy, which is that we need to do something with the residual waste. We operate 10 energy recovery facilities within the UK, three of which have district heating. Bearing in mind the plans that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has for a heat road map, which I think is proposed for June, there is a role, which we need at least to recognise, for energy recovery, preferably with heat decarbonisation.

We are addressing the issue that the waste has to go somewhere. The landfills are running out. Therefore we need to do something with it that will also help us with generating electricity, given the fact that there will be even more intense pressure on the grid because of the number of electric cars that we obviously hope for, to reduce our carbon impact. There should be at least some recognition that it is an important component of the overall mix.

[Richard Graham]

Q Can I ask Mr Bellamy a separate question? It is really about your members and their attitudes to eliminating avoidable waste of all kinds. Do you think the introduction of charges for any single-use plastic item will incentivise a shift towards the direction that the Government want to go in, or do you think your members will resist that?

David Bellamy: The question of avoidable waste is a little bit open to interpretation, in our estimation. It may warrant a definition in the Bill. We suggest that that material might not be recoverable in any shape or form, or it might not be replaceable by something else.

[Richard Graham]

Q Would you support the traffic light system, which clearly identifies for every consumer exactly which bit of plastic can be recycled and which cannot?

David Bellamy: We support a binary labelling system to that effect. We have not looked at a traffic light scheme as such. The current proposal is more of a descriptor-based labelling system, which basically says that something can or cannot be recycled. We strongly support the concept of a binary system.

[Richard Graham]

Q Andrew, can your members respond to the challenge with the speed that is needed to achieve these net carbon targets?

Andrew Poole: The truth is that some will, and some will not. We have tried to highlight, across the piece, in terms of these environmental challenges, the requirement to understand the business audience in more detail. Small businesses are very different. There are myriad different types of organisation. We consistently challenge policy makers on that requirement to understand in more detail the business audience that is being affected. If there are any requirements or opportunities to provide support to small businesses, that support should be targeted to those businesses that are least able to adapt. The more time that businesses are given to adapt and change the way they do things, the more likely they are to achieve those changes.

[Richard Graham]

In one way—

[The Chair]

Mr Graham, I am sorry, but I going to take a brief, final question from Ruth Edwards. I have tried to get everybody in. This will be the final question.

Environment Bill (Second sitting)

Richard Graham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Any advance on 10%, Dr Young?

Dr Young: It is important that 10% should not be a cap on the ambition for net gain. Net gain can make a really good contribution to nature’s recovery and we certainly welcome seeing it in the Bill and that it is mandatory. Having quoted 10%, however, we would not want to limit the ambition of those developers and local authorities that would like to go higher.

Dr Mitchell: Net gain provides an opportunity for some farmers who can be the deliverers of it, which is important to consider, but we should not forget that farmers can be developers themselves. They may want to replace a farm building, which may require them to meet the net gain requirements.

We are pleased to see in the Bill that there is an exemption from the need to provide net gain for permitted development. That is really helpful and important, especially for smaller developments on farms that farmers can do through the permitted development rights. We have to remember that in some areas of high environmental value, going beyond 10% might be quite difficult for the farmers, because they are doing 110%, which means that they may have to contribute quite a lot or they may have to get someone else to do the biodiversity credits for them.

We are conscious that in some areas, permitted development rights may not apply for some reason—for example, in national parks. In those areas, farmers would be disadvantaged. Not only would they have the additional costs of applying for planning permission, but they may have additional specific design requirements to meet in that national park area, and they would have to meet the net gain requirements on top of that, so they are already possibly at a disadvantage. One suggestion we have is to broaden the exemption that I just talked about to deliver the net gain to areas where the permitted development rights do not currently apply.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Q I want to come on to the thorny issue of conservation covenants and potential abstraction compensation. May I start with one question to Mr Law of Natural England? From your point of view, what could conservation covenants deliver on the ground? If you could be as concise as possible, that would be great.

Alan Law: At the moment, we have a range of tools available to us to deliver conservation outcomes. We can designate sites, we can offer incentives and we can engage through the planning system to try to deliver planning gain. Conservation covenants would provide another tool we could use that would be between some of those existing tools.

[Richard Graham]

Q You clearly see it as a positive. Can you give us one example of what could be delivered? Bring it alive for anybody watching this great programme.

Alan Law: We could have conversations with landowners about new agri-environment agreements. Our ambition is to see public investments in public benefits in perpetuity. We could explore the desirability of a covenant with the agreement of the landowner to secure the long-term value of that investment. We could alternatively use a covenant as a different means of ensuring an area is protected in the long term, as an alternative to designation.

[Richard Graham]

Q That is not quite a specific example, but it gives us some structural ideas. Ms Hammond, you welcomed the idea; you are in favour of it. Can you give us an idea of how your members would benefit from conservation covenants?

Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, as you say, we welcome the idea. Depending on how they are set up, we think that covenants are a flexible way to ensure that conservation aims are advanced. They enable two parties to enter into a contract for the long term, which my members value, because most of them will think of their business in multigenerational terms. This is an opportunity for our members to deliver some of the ambitions.

[Richard Graham]

Q And access to an enhanced environment for members of the public, as well.

Judicaelle Hammond: Yes.

[Richard Graham]

Thank you. Dr Mitchell—

[The Chair]

Just a moment, before we move forward, you are quite entitled to ask specific questions of specific people, but does anybody else want to comment on the issues that have been raised so far? Yes, Dr Young.

Dr Young: I think conservation covenants provide a really useful tool for securing long-term environmental gains. Our concern about the effectiveness of this is that net gain, for example, which they could work well with, ought to be secured in perpetuity. It should not be too easy to discharge a covenant and risk the loss of biodiversity and other public goods. The terms used in the circumstances for modifying or discharging them ought to be clear enough to give that confidence.

[The Chair]

Right, Mr Graham, if you would like to carry on.

[Richard Graham]

Q Dr Mitchell, in your written evidence you expressed, as did Ms Hammond, considerable concern about the powers to amend or revoke licences for the abstraction of water. As I read it, the changes recommended in clause 80 are all about where the modification is to protect the environment. For example, you might have a member who owns land high up in the Welsh hills, and it may be thought helpful for people living in Shropshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire to have a catchment area or enlarged reservoir for water, to avoid people being flooded downstream. In that situation, is it right that your members should be compensated?

Dr Mitchell: Yes, we do have concerns about the provisions in the Bill to revoke or amend abstraction licences. I think that is the clause we are talking about.

[Richard Graham]

Q It is very specific about the situations. The Bill spells it out clearly:

“No compensation where modification to protect environment”.

It then goes on to specific issues and I gave you an example of one. Surely, in the situation I gave you, it would be wrong to expect the taxpayer to compensate the farmer?

Dr Mitchell: What we are concerned about is not only the fact that the abstraction licence can be withdrawn or amended without compensation, but if you look at the tests to assess harm or impact on the water environment, there is a low evidential bar. They are broadbrush proposals, so there are dual concerns about this.

[Richard Graham]

Q So it is a general concern rather than a specific issue.

Dr Mitchell: It is a general concern.

[Richard Graham]

Is that the same for Ms Hammond?

Judicaelle Hammond: We share some of the NFU’s views, particularly about how the reason for the necessity of the variation or removal is framed. In the Bill, it is very broad and it is not clear that it will be evidence based. That is certainly a concern that we share. I would add that abstraction licences are a business asset and there are property rights, so from our perspective removing them without compensation is an infringement of property rights.

[Richard Graham]

Okay, point understood.

[The Chair]

Q Are there any wildlife implications, Dr Young?

Dr Young: This is not an area that I work on, but I am happy to consult colleagues and provide information to follow up.

[The Chair]

That is fine. I just want to make sure you are not missing out on something.

Dr Mitchell: To add to what Judicaelle said, if the proposals go ahead as currently drafted, they will create a lot of uncertainty for some of our members. They could potentially undermine business liability and productivity for some of our members.

[Richard Graham]

Q I understand, but that is a hypothetical risk. You have not given a specific example of one, although I gave you a specific example where I think the public interest would be at stake.

Dr Mitchell: Yes, but they are clearly broadbrush proposals and the evidential bar is low. Abstraction licences are important for business security and certainty. Years’ worth of investment has gone into some businesses to ensure that people have access to water. That investment has been made in the knowledge that they have permission to abstract. It could create a lot of uncertainty for a number of our members.

An additional aspect that we are concerned about is the excess headroom provisions, because we are unsure how you could develop an equitable system to assess the underuse of water. There are various reasons why you might not use your licence, including the weather or crop rotation.

[The Chair]

It is a significant issue, but we are going to have to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

Q Does that mean that there is an opportunity there for the sector to up its game a little bit in how it demonstrates, particularly to people at a parish council level, how they can enhance the natural environment? I am thinking particularly of more rural areas, where you have developments going up on the edge of a village. That can be very contentious, as I am sure you are aware, but if developers were given the opportunity to say, “Because of this legislation, we are now going to do this,” do you think that would potentially help those relationships?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Yes, in a perfect world, but not always, because local parish councils perhaps become set in their ways in believing that a particular thing will damage their area. A great example that you mentioned there is building on the edge of a village. We would love to be able to build on the edge of a village. Unfortunately, opposition from parish councils is so strong that many developments end up going quite far away from the parish. Then people say, “Now we don’t have the right infrastructure in place.” That is because if you are building, say, 20 homes in a community, you may get more opposition than if you are building 200 on the outskirts.

So, yes, while that could be the case, it has to be about accepting that developers are trying to do the best thing, and not simply about having extra regulations or extra ideas put on top of them. When you go back to the beginning of the planning process, we already have the issue whereby 30 homes can take three years to get permission, and 500 homes three miles away might take six months. You think to yourself that you want the homes and you want more dense communities so you can use these bus services, and maybe even train services, and you get better commercial opportunities, but you are not really understanding the process for that. So, yes, hopefully.

[Richard Graham]

Mr Wojtulewicz—if I have pronounced your name correctly.

Rico Wojtulewicz: Perfect.

[Richard Graham]

Q Thank you for joining this session. For all of us, housing and planning is such a massive constituency interest and concern. My experience of the past 10 years as MP is that, time and time again, developers appear to have been behind the curve. When you look at the provision of broadband, so often houses were built without it. When we look at solar panels, the same thing. Electric charging, the same thing again.

There are outstanding exceptions to that. For example, a housing association called Rooftop based in Evesham has done some things in my constituency that are largely social and affordable housing that have solar panels and electric charging points. However, it is not always the norm and the Bill seems to me to open the way for house builders and developers to think proactively about what sort of contribution they can make to a net zero carbon future. How do you think this Bill might help house builders and developers adopt that approach and come up with creative ideas that deliver the homes we want while boosting the goals of this Bill to protect and improve the environment?

Rico Wojtulewicz: I will take each one of those individually. If you are trying to put broadband into a site, you may ensure that you can have high-speed broadband throughout the whole site. It is not your job to be the BT or the Openreach of that world. You cannot connect that site, typically. It is more difficult to do that and, especially in rural communities, there are smaller groups living there. You can make sure your site is broadband ready but somebody else has to connect it.

We had the same issues with electric charging points. Many of our members have had to pay for substations to be put in when, effectively, the energy company was making money in perpetuity. Mr Graham said contributions: it is not contribution, it is cost. It is increasing the value of the property and increasing delays. We need a strategy for local authorities to do a better job of understanding where those areas will be connected and why.

[Richard Graham]

Q Just to be clear, that does risk sounding a bit like “Well, we’re not going to do that sort of thing because it all costs us a little bit of money and our profits will be reduced slightly.” Looking at the salary of Persimmon’s chief executive, one wonders whether all of that story is necessarily accurate. Don’t you think there is a case for house builders to get ahead of the curve and do things that everybody wants to see and people expect in their houses now, and if they have got it already, their houses would be more popular and sell for more money?

Rico Wojtulewicz: In essence, you may be correct, but if you have built a site that is high-speed broadband ready and Openreach cannot come in to connect that site for two years, and they are the only provider available—

[Richard Graham]

Q That is a separate issue, isn’t it?

Rico Wojtulewicz: It is a key issue.

[Richard Graham]

Q What we are talking about is retrofitting on developments that were not ready.

Rico Wojtulewicz: No, it is not retrofitting, it is connecting the initials.

[Richard Graham]

Q I am encouraging you, Mr Wojtulewicz, to look at the positive opportunities for your members and for you to identify what they are, rather than complaining about the additional cost that might be involved.

Rico Wojtulewicz: You cannot separate the two because it is not necessarily about the cost. The cost is also in delay. It would be great in a perfect world, but if you have to connect that site up and nobody can move into that site unless it is connected up and you have to wait for somebody to connect it up for you, that is a delay that ends up being a cost. You may have to pay council tax on each one of those properties until it is inhabited. The cost—you cannot separate the two. It would be great if we could. It would be great if we had all the right opportunities in place.

I will pick on solar panels as a great example. Many of our members install solar panels. It is easy for housing associations to do that because they maintain the site themselves. When a developer does it, we have no issue about putting in solar panels, but when we look at it, we say: “Wouldn’t it be better for that money to be contributed to a district scheme where the maintenance is either done centrally by the developer or the local authority takes it over, so that in five or 10 years’ time, those solar panels are maintained and can also be replaced?”. If it is a homeowner’s choice to do that, we find that they do not get replaced or maintained and are not part of the fabric of the building. That is why in the part L regulation on energy efficiency, we encouraged using the money that might be used to enforce solar panels to be used on a district system, because solar panels themselves are an add-on, not part of the fabric. If they are part of the fabric, absolutely, but this is not a cost. What you are asking is: “How can we retrofit solar panels in the future?” We need to have an energy system that works for that neighbourhood so that we have local energy generation.

[Richard Graham]

Q Do you want to have one last go very briefly at identifying what opportunities you see from the clarity of the Environment Bill on house building or carry on with a series of negative comments?

Rico Wojtulewicz: If you accept the realities of what I have said, absolutely. The opportunity also needs to be strategic. If local authorities can play into the strategy of their neighbourhood, there are many opportunities to deliver cleaner air by having electric chargers; to ensure that broadband is better connected; and that we have local energy generation because house builders are playing their part. Those are the fantastic opportunities that we need to have a conversation about and how we deliver them, and not simply put it on the developer, because it is not as deliverable as you might think it is.

[Richard Graham]

Q We will interpret that as meaning that your members are ready to play their part.

Rico Wojtulewicz: To play their part, yes.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q On a slightly different topic, the question of building waste wood in the waste stream has been a live issue for quite a while, and the extent to which legislation should be introduced to ban waste wood from the waste stream—that is, other things need to be done to it higher up the waste hierarchy. That issue particularly involves wood that has been used in building. Very often builders just put their wood in waste streams when they have finished building the property or properties. Do you have a view on that? Do you think legislation is required, possibly in this Bill, to ensure that that wood does not go into the waste stream and is used higher up the hierarchy or are there things the building industry could do to make sure it does not happen?

Rico Wojtulewicz: It is definitely not my expertise, but if it is a real concern, the industry would support measures to ensure that that does not occur.

Flooding

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I am going to address all those points of review later, but I wanted to take the opportunity, since this does not always happen, to effectively acknowledge some of the great work that has been done on the ground by the Environment Agency and our emergency services.

In Ironbridge, the substructure of the soil along the riverbank sadly does not lend itself to the demountable barriers that were so effective in other towns, but temporary barriers were deployed to contain the water that breached the river bank, with 800 metres of temporary barriers deployed along the Wharfage.

While most effects in the days after Storm Dennis were felt along the Severn, there was further heavy rain late last week, which led to major challenges in parts of Yorkshire, notably around the washlands at Snaith and East Cowick. The washlands are one of the oldest man-made flood defence systems in the country, dating back some 400 years. However, the sheer volume of rainfall meant that they were overwhelmed. We have deployed 48 multi-agency pumps in operation across the Aire washlands, as water levels start to drop, to dewater homes. There is an urgency to this work, since next weekend we will also see peak seasonal tides on the east coast, which can lock rivers. We must therefore use the window of opportunity in the weeks ahead.

The motion tabled by the Opposition suggests an independent inquiry. I am grateful for this opportunity to describe all the other inquiries that we have had on flood response over the last decade or so and what actions have been taken to implement those recommendations. First, the Pitt review, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and which followed the 2007 floods, informed new laws better to manage flooding under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The crucial recommendations of the review regarding flood response led to the establishment of local resilience forums.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I will on that point, but then I am going to make progress.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful. A lot of the Pitt review recommendations were implemented in Gloucester at that time and have made a huge difference. My neighbours suffered terribly this year. None the less, not a single home in Gloucester flooded, as a result of good work by the Environment Agency and local councils.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Secondly, after the 2014 floods, another review was led by Oliver Letwin. It led to a number of further improvements, including the establishment of a new national flood response centre, based out of the Cabinet Office, to ensure that cross-government decisions on operational matters were taken expeditiously. The review also led to improved flood forecasting capabilities.

Thirdly, because there were concerns that some local authorities were better prepared than others to meet the challenge of flood response, in 2018 the Cross review recommended that every local authority should have a formal plan of action to respond to flood risk in its area.

The substantive recommendations in all three of those reviews have been implemented, and it is because they have been implemented that the response on the ground to these extraordinary weather events has been so effective and rapid. The Government amendment to the motion therefore recognises and corrects what might be an oversight in the Opposition motion, which is to recognise what has been done in response to previous reviews.

The Government amendment also corrects another omission from the Opposition motion, relating to funding. Climate change means that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I thank both my hon. Friends for those interventions, with which I agree. I must move on quickly because of the shortness of time.

The other issue that I wish to raise is house building, or any kind of building, in flood risk areas. It is causing an awful lot of trouble. In my constituency, the current joint core strategy proposes a 50% increase in the number of houses in the council area where I live. Not only does that increase mean that green-belt land is seriously compromised, but we have a lot of flood risk areas. The building of that number of houses in my area will cause an awful lot of misery for very many people.

I am concerned about our approach to building in flood risk areas. The Pitt report of some years ago was somewhat compromised: it said that yes, flood risk areas should be avoided, but it also said they should be avoided unless there was a need for a certain number of houses. I do not think that that compromise is necessary, because when somebody is flooded for more than a year, they really do not want to see more development in their area.

I am rather concerned about how the Environment Agency makes its assessments. It uses maps that in my view are not always accurate—they do not always reflect the flood risk in an area—and it talks about frequencies, but the frequencies of flooding have changed, with flooding now much more frequent than it used to be. Who knows where that trend will go in future?

We have heard it said that we do not really build in flood risk areas any more; we absolutely do. I have shown the Secretary of State a photograph of an industrial digger preparing land in my constituency for houses—and the digger is stood in water. Around 2,000 houses are going to be built on that land, which is already sodden and far too wet. It is a matter not only of whether the houses built on that land will flood, but of water displacement—will building on that land cause flooding for people in other areas? It is a serious consideration. Just this week the Environment Agency said that

“it isn’t always possible or practical to prevent all new development in flood risk areas”;

well, that is going to cause an awful lot of problems for very many people.

We really ought to revisit the policy. I know the driver behind it—I know that this Government and successive Governments have wanted to provide homes for people. I joined the Conservative party during Margaret Thatcher’s time, and one of her great policies was on home ownership, with which I entirely agreed. Home ownership is a fantastic aspiration, but we need to be careful about where we build houses. Building houses for the sake of it will not actually make them more affordable. We risk compromising the green belt and building in flood risk areas for no actual benefit to some of the people who are looking to buy houses.

I referred to the site in my area where an industrial digger is sat in water; that is at a place called Twigworth and Innsworth, where permission has been given not by the local council but by the inspector. The inspector looked at the application in December 2017 and should have rejected it, but the fact that the Environment Agency did not object to the development did not help. Everybody who lives in that area knows what a problem it is going to cause. I shall name one person who knows what a problem it is going to cause: David Cameron. In February 2014, he visited the area. Why? Because the road was completely blocked because of flooding and the fields where the development is now taking place were flooded. He declared then that building should not take place in such areas. What has gone wrong?

I pin no blame at all on the new Secretary of State—he is brand-new to his position and I wish him well—but I ask him to revisit the existing policy on assessing whether land is suitable for development. The surgery that I did at the weekend was very busy, full of people coming to complain about overdevelopment. I think the one message that they would like me to give to the Secretary of State is that we should review the policy before it is too late. Once we have built on land, we cannot unbuild on that land.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I have recently discussed whether there were possible solutions in building more capacity in the Welsh hills to hold back water from the Severn. That would also give the Government an opportunity to ask Severn Trent Water to transport some of the water by pipe down to the areas in the south-east that suffer from a lack of water. Does my hon. Friend agree that that could be a useful contribution, saving his constituency and mine from being flooded?

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. Back in 2007, it was not only the water that fell in Tewkesbury that caused the problem; it was also the water that came down from Wales. I pin no blame at all for that on Wales—I would not dare with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker—but my hon. Friend makes a good and serious point with which I agree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are clear that we are seeking a free trade agreement with the European Union without tariffs. That is something that the Prime Minister and his team will be working on in the months ahead.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to increase tree-planting rates.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to increase tree-planting rates.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Theresa Villiers)]

Our manifesto commits us to increase tree planting to a rate of 30,000 hectares a year by 2025 across the UK. Our £640 million nature for climate fund will help us to deliver a massive uplift in tree planting, as part of wider efforts to become a net zero carbon economy.

[Richard Graham]

The Secretary of State will know that many of us are leading on planting plans in our constituencies, working closely with local councils, local wildlife trusts and so on. A good example is the new arboretum at lower Westgate Street in Gloucester, which was planted at the beginning of January. However, does she agree that there is a risk that, however many thousands of trees we plant in our constituencies, somebody will always say that we should have done much more? Is there an opportunity for some independent body to make an objective assessment of how many trees can realistically be planted in urban constituencies such as mine?

[Theresa Villiers]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about setting appropriate targets. We plan to work closely with local authorities as we drive forward with our commitment to plant more trees. The Environment Bill contains important changes to the planning system—for example, an environmental net gain—that will encourage investment in nature, biodiversity and tree planting.

Environment Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is always sad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) cut off in full flow, but full flow is what is happening to parts of the River Severn close to my constituency of Gloucester, and therefore this debate on the environment comes at a very appropriate time.

Earlier in the debate we heard various Opposition Members make a number of complaints about the Bill. There are of course two ways for the Opposition to criticise any Bill: the first is to say, “This is a missed opportunity”; and the second is to say, “It hasn’t gone far enough.” The second, of course, normally comes with a corollary along the lines of, “The targets should be tougher; Britain can be more ambitious; we would have done it better.” But to be fair, today the shadow Minister acknowledged that this Bill is incredibly important in a whole number of ways and does some groundbreaking work in terms of establishing targets on water, air, plastics, biodiversity and so on. It is the first time in our country’s history that we have tried to be this ambitious and tried to tackle these things with genuine measures that will be measured by a new Office for Environmental Protection. I think everybody across the House recognises that that is a significant step forward.

So this is a vital Bill that tackles some key areas and has some Select Committee input. There is much to applaud, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that there is not always something more that could be done. Therefore, let me first commend the Government and, secondly, say to Members of the Opposition that those who criticise the Government for their environmental performance need to look at the world’s environmental performance index. We have moved from 12th in 2016 to sixth in 2018, and during the four years from 2014-18 the amount of coal produced for electricity went from 30% to 5.4%. Those are remarkable statistics.

What are the areas where we could do better? First, it would be practical for the Government to recognise that there is widespread support across the House for the principle of non-regression in environmental standards, so I hope that that will be changed in the next stage of the Bill. Secondly, the Government have an opportunity to go much further in their approach to some forms of energy generation. For example, we should simply drop the idea that fracking is ever going to happen in this country: I do not think there is support for it; I do not think it is practical; and I think we should recognise that.

Then there is the business of onshore wind. We should at this stage establish two different tiers of contracts for difference and auctions for green energy. We should have onshore wind and offshore in tier 1. Then we can allow marine energy to bid for, as it were, the more innovative and newer sources of energy under tier 2. That would be a great step forward for green energy sources.

I also think that, as the Transport Secretary has suggested, we could bring forward the date for getting rid of diesel cars, but we will need incentives to do so for all of us, and incentives to buy electric cars as well. That, in turn, will trigger a planning requirement for electric charging points, which I hope the Government will be looking out for from all local authorities. We will need more powers on air pollution for local authorities as well, and ultimately we will need a Minister to bring all these things together and be responsible for the net zero carbon targets. I can think of no better candidate than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, once he has fulfilled his current obligations on Brexit.

Lastly, it would be wrong not to mention the ecopark in Gloucester, which I hope very much to develop with Enerva, the owner, the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and other interested parties, with solar panels, biomass, huge numbers of new trees and a biodiversity park as well. I hope the Secretary of State will support this, with a little bit of help from Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Environment and Climate Change

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am grateful for your calling me early, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for being able to contribute—albeit briefly—to the debate. I start by agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition; he was right to call for consensus on tackling climate change. I also thought it entirely appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs clearly showed the cross-party support for delivering on the UK’s ambition and global leadership in this area, as well as pointing out how far the UK is delivering on this agenda. We need to introduce some balance into this debate, and I am pleased that both did so. I join others—on both sides of the House—in suggesting that we should proceed with efforts for London to host next year’s climate change conference. I very much hope that it does.

I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and as such have the opportunity to review the Committee on Climate Change’s and activists’ claims and challenges, as well as to hold the Government to account on the delivery of the sustainable development goals and their climate change priorities. I was pleased therefore to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) when he yesterday introduced his 10-minute rule Bill, which was very well supported by Conservative Members. It is absolutely right that the House seek to commit to net zero emissions by 2050, and this in itself will require facing up to many significant challenges—some have already been mentioned, I am sure others will be—on land use, transport, energy sources, energy efficiency, joining up Government policy and showing international leadership to share the burden across the globe.

Taking that further and faster, however, as some have called for, would increase the challenge. As a farmer, I join the Secretary of State in applauding the NFU for accepting a net zero emissions challenge for agriculture by 2040. This will require very significant changes to land use, as has been graphically highlighted by the “Zero Carbon Britain” report from the Centre for Alternative Technology, which shows that diversifying land use is required across most of what we currently do today. We would need to double the land used for food for human beings in this country; to dramatically reduce the grassland for livestock; to double the forested area to a quarter of the entire UK; and substantially to increase the areas for biomass and renewable energy.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On reforestation, did he share my enthusiasm for the Secretary of State’s remarks today about planting 11 million trees across the country? Could this not fire up schools’ imagination? We could get them to do much more of this and maybe have an award for the best primary schools locally to follow through on this agenda of reforestation.

[Mr Dunne]

That is well worth doing—we should encourage younger generations to recognise the power that trees have in capturing carbon—but 11 million trees goes nowhere near what would be required to get to net zero. It is a step in the right direction but only a single step.

Brexit and leaving the common agricultural policy provide the UK with a unique opportunity to take a lead, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing through the Agriculture Bill, in developing a new system of support to encourage such change in land use. While it will not be easy, it is absolutely right that we take full advantage of this opportunity.

We have heard much about the problems and challenges of meeting these targets but very few solutions offered yet in this debate, so I would like to highlight two. Innovation and maturing technology will create opportunities and solutions and drive down costs—as we have seen, solar costs have declined by 35% in the last three years alone—but a balance of technologies will be required; there will be no simple single solution.

There has been considerable focus—my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) mentioned it earlier—on the switch to electric vehicles, but this will pose very significant generation challenges. One example provided to me recently suggests that one motorway service station replacing 20 petrol and diesel pumps with 120 electric superchargers—the number needed to fuel the same number of vehicles in an hour—would require a 14.5 MW substation, which is equivalent to the electricity required for 32,000 homes. This is, then, unlikely to be the simple solution that some of us hope for, so I would like to make a quick plug for hydrogen fuel cell generation, which can become cheaper than batteries and is being pioneered by a small company, Riversimple, which was started in my constituency. It has the added benefit of reducing reliance on cobalt, which is required for batteries and is itself a finite resource.

The second solution is for changing attitudes and behaviour in an area of UK global strength—it is something I have taken a particular interest in on the EAC: the UK’s leadership role on emerging green finance initiatives. This was set out in our Committee report last year, “Greening Finance: embedding sustainability in financial decision making”. Climate risk reporting by companies and pension funds will make clear the financial implications of ignoring climate change and provides an opportunity for the UK to show global leadership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) echoed many of the good things that have been said today, by people from all parts of the House, about a cause—climate change—on which we must unite. The key to this is not just calling climate change an emergency, but taking action to show that we mean it. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to zero net carbon emissions by 2050 and to planting millions of trees across the country to help to protect our part of the planet. I hope, too, that the Government pull together a cross-departmental plan to deliver that nationally and help us to lead in the world by, for example, using DFID funds to continue the good work of its climate change unit to protect rainforests in Indonesia.

Locally, in Gloucestershire, achieving that means resolving the air pollution on the A38 by Llanthony and the huge A417 Air Balloon problem, as well as finishing the cycle paths on the canal and in the Golden valley from Gloucester to Cheltenham. It means doing much more about litter and Project Refill for water bottles; I hope that our schoolchildren will join me in taking those things forward. It also means closing the residual waste tip at Hempsted and replacing it with grass valleys harvesting solar power in due course. Both locally and nationally, we need to look again at what we will do about onshore wind, and above all at how to use the world’s strongest tide on the River Severn and around the Welsh coast. More generally, around our nation’s coastline, marine energy remains a largely untapped source of green energy.

I want Gloucester to be at the forefront of a green revolution. We are already home to the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Robinswood hill, Barnwood arboretum, EDF Energy’s nuclear operational headquarters, the Kingsway green sustainability group and an MP on his cherry-and-white bike. We can make real progress on all the things I have mentioned and help to turn an emergency into an opportunity, for a better city, a greener Gloucester and a zero-carbon United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, let us hear the fella—I call Richard Graham.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Speaker.

One of the most exciting developments of recent times has been the announcement from the University of Manchester of a way of desalinating water through graphene sieves, which can turn it into drinking water. That has huge implications around the world. Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest possible benefits is the decrease in the number of water bottles, which so often find their way into the marine ecosystem?

[Dr Coffey]

I also saw that interesting announcement by the University of Manchester, which just shows the benefits of this Government having invested in the university to develop graphene. There are a number of ways in which we can try to reduce the impact of plastics, and we will continue to support water companies in their long-term plans, including on desalination.

Ivory Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend, who played an immensely distinguished role as a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in leading on the defence of biodiversity and support for wildlife, is absolutely right. As well as acknowledging the role that elephants play as an iconic species in their own right and as a keystone species in guaranteeing biodiversity, the successful co-existence of elephants alongside man is a sign of an effective and functioning nation in Africa which is on the right path for the future. It has been so encouraging that enlightened leadership across African nations recognises the vital importance of ensuring that man and the elephant can live alongside one another in appropriate harmony.

It is also the case, of course, that there are forces within African nations that can see in the ivory trade an opportunity to make money, to feed organised crime and to support terrorist and other activity, and it is precisely because ivory poaching and the illegal wildlife trade sustain organised crime and subsidise terror that it is in the interests of all of us who not only want to protect nature and biodiversity, but want to see human societies and other states flourish, to take action to stamp out this crime, and that is what this Bill seeks to do.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome the Ivory Bill and the way in which the Secretary of State is putting forward the case for the elephant, but does he agree that one of the difficulties is that if we do things unilaterally they are unlikely to be as effective as if the whole world acts together? Therefore, if we look at the various measures that different parts of the world are taking, for instance the exemption for certain types of ivory from China or the different rules in different parts of Europe, we see that there is a real opportunity for a group like the G20 to harmonise the rules—which musical instruments are going to be exempted and so on—across the world.

[Michael Gove]

Yes, I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point. It is important that we co-operate, and one of the things this country will be doing is hosting the illegal wildlife trade summit in October. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already been working with other countries, including by visiting Argentina, as the leader of the G20, just two weeks ago, in order to ensure there is the maximum possible buy-in. I had the opportunity myself to talk to a variety of representatives of different nations at the United Nations just a couple of months ago in order to ensure there is that effective co-ordination.

However, there can sometimes be a tendency—I know my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) would not succumb to this—to say, “We need to wait for others to act before we act ourselves.” In so doing, we fail sometimes to act with the urgency, and to show the degree of leadership, that will encourage others to follow. It is absolutely right to acknowledge the leadership shown by the Chinese Government and others in seeking to close their markets to ivory, but this is an opportunity, in this place and at this time, for our generation to show leadership as well. And the leadership we want to show is to specifically ensure that we reduce demand for ivory in this country and globally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to ensure security of electricity supply in winter 2016-17 and in future years.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

19. What steps her Department is taking to ensure security of electricity supply in winter 2016-17 and in future years.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

Our top priority is to make sure that families and businesses have secure energy supplies, and therefore to ensure that National Grid has the right tools in place to manage the system. Our energy security has been strengthened by reforms of the capacity market, including holding an auction this coming winter for delivery in 2017-18.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The capacity market is the most cost-effective way to make sure we have the infrastructure to cope with unexpected demand peaks. In May, we committed to buying more capacity and buying it sooner. New build capacity is eligible for 15-year agreements, providing a secure revenue stream and thereby encouraging new gas infrastructure.

[Richard Graham]

Yesterday I launched a new all-party parliamentary group for marine energy, to promote the fantastic potential from our tumultuous seas of energy, whether tidal, stream or wave. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Hendry review comes out in November this year, the Government should respond as fast and as positively as possible to make us a world leader in what could be one of the great sources of energy in the world?

[Andrea Leadsom]

We certainly recognise the potential that tidal lagoons could bring to the UK, which is why we have commissioned this independent review. We are absolutely committed to providing clean, affordable and secure energy that we can rely on now and in the future. This review will report in the autumn and will help us to determine what role tidal lagoons could play in that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

7. What recent steps the Great British Food Unit has taken to promote regional food and drink.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

10. What progress her Department has made on promoting regional food and drink.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

We launched the Great British Food Unit in January to promote our fantastic British produce around the world. In April, I was in the US working to open the market for beef and lamb, as well as promoting fantastic British products such as the classic gin and tonic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

We know that for a third of all visitors, food is a major factor in deciding where to visit. It is hugely important, which is why DEFRA is backing food tourism. We recently backed the “tour culinaire” to Yorkshire, which accompanied the cycle race and featured fantastic Yorkshire products such as liquorice. I would be delighted to discuss with my right hon. Friend how we could do something similar in Essex in respect of fantastic products such as Tiptree strawberry jam.

[Richard Graham]

The Secretary of State will be delighted to learn that, since she visited Gloucester Services in February, it has been given both a sustainability award and the first Royal Institute of British Architects award ever given to a motorway services station. Famously, while she was there she enjoyed a Gloucester Old Spot sausage for breakfast. I hope that she will now confirm that, during our renegotiations with the European Union, she will seek to extend the protections given to Gloucester Old Spot meat, Single Gloucester cheese, and other great British foods.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very enjoyable visit to Gloucester Services. I am delighted that its chief executive, Sarah Dunning, has agreed to be one of our food pioneers, promoting Great British food around Britain and around the world. I look forward to talking to my hon. Friend about how we can protect these great products when they are not just a matter for the European Union, but are more widely known around the world.