Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is quite right that prior to 2007 the Labour Government did not consider the development of nuclear power by state means to be an appropriate way forward, although they never suggested that the development of nuclear power by private means could not be countenanced. However, we have since had more than 10 years of Conservative-led Government, which has produced precisely no nuclear power plants. Indeed, there is one nuclear power plant in the pipeline, and we hope a nuclear power plant that can be financed by reasonable means. One of the problems with the previous plant, Hinkley Point C, which the present Government got off the ground, was the funding arrangements, with EDF supplying most of the capital for the plant and then a CfD for the plant at the end, which looks like it will be quite disastrous, with future electricity prices being completely uneconomic.

It is therefore important that we get a method for funding those nuclear plants, and particularly Sizewell C, that does not fall into those traps and is also secure for the future. That is the concern of our amendments 1 and 2. To put the record straight, anyone who looks at those amendments reasonably closely will see that amendment 1 defines what is stated in amendment 2, and that it is defined as

“means owned by a company controlled by a foreign state and operating for investment purposes.”

That does not include EDF. Let us be clear from the outset that EDF is not

“a company controlled by a foreign state.”

Although it is substantially owned by a foreign state, it is not operating for investment purposes, but for production purposes. Let us be clear about what the particular concern is for the future.

[Richard Graham]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that EDF is majority owned by the state. If the state required it to do certain things, I do not see how the company could say no. Could the hon. Gentleman confirm if that is his understanding?

[Dr Whitehead]

It is correct that EDF is owned by the French state, but it is not controlled by the French state and, as I say, it does not operate for investment purposes. The amendment specifically excludes that kind of company from its provisions, but, importantly, it includes companies such as the China General Nuclear Power Corporation, which is clearly owned and controlled by a foreign state and operates for investment purposes.

[Richard Graham]

This is incredibly important. The amendment states

“the nuclear company is not wholly or in part owned by a foreign power”.

Factually, that is the situation with EDF. I do not have a problem with it, but I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that his amendment does not say what he has just said it does, and it is therefore inaccurate, even by what he is trying to achieve.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am afraid we will have to differ on that. Amendment 1 has been written on good advice, in terms of what EDF does and does not do in its operation, and, on the contrary, what a company such as the China General Nuclear Power Corporation does. There is a clear distinction between those two particular companies and organisations.

The amendments wish to draw attention to the fact that this is not an academic issue. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned earlier, we have an agreement in place at the moment whereby the Chinese state nuclear corporation has a 35% stake in Hinkley Point C, a 20% stake in Sizewell C, should it go ahead, and complete control of Bradwell, should that go ahead, with ownership of the site and operations, and with the installation of a Chinese reactor. That agreement has already been reached, so the issue in this Bill is that if the regulated asset base is going to be put in place to finance and bring about the control of a nuclear power plant by the Chinese Government over the next period, we think that that would be a retrograde step for the future of nuclear power in this country, for obvious reasons.

In Committee, we asked the Government whether they wished to make any statement about the future of the agreement that is currently in place, which was agreed between 2013 and 2016 and includes the Secretary of State’s investment agreement, and about future arrangements for nuclear power. We asked if they could they confirm that RAB would not be used as an instrument to extend those arrangements, as far as the Chinese Government are concerned. They have not said anything about that at all; I regret that. Hence we have brought these amendments to try to clarify what RAB will be used for, what the position is concerning the 20% of Sizewell C that looks to be owned by the Chinese Government in the future, and how that relates to RAB overall. Although it is not central to the RAB debate, it is an important element in that debate and needs clarification for the future.

We did not particularly want to table these amendments. If we had had a statement from the Government that they were not proceeding with Bradwell and were going to bring an end to the arrangements that are in place for Sizewell C at the moment, perhaps things might have been different, but we urgently need some clarification about their intentions in relation to RAB and Chinese involvement in UK civil nuclear power in future. That is what amendments 1 and 2 would achieve.

Environment Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 21st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Interestingly, this new clause comes at the same point from a slightly different direction. On the basis of what the Minister had to say just a moment ago, she might consider how this clause might work in enhancing the ability of the OEP to secure importance in an appropriate and robust manner.

The new clause—and I shall not dwell on it great length—requires a public authority to whom the OEP has issued a recommendation to normally follow that recommendation. That is an onus in law, on the public authority, to follow the course of action set out in the recommendation made by the OEP. There can, of course, be exceptions to that, and there may be circumstances in which an authority considers it does not have to follow a recommendation. However, if that is the case, the new clause provides that it should publish a report setting out the reasons for not doing so and, positively, what alternative course of action it proposes to take.

The new clause would considerably enhance the power of the recommendations of the OEP as the default position would be that an authority should follow its recommendation; it could not get away with saying “Well, we don’t particularly want to do that. There are reasons for this; trust us—don’t worry. We don’t have to do it”. Instead, it would have to go public on why it could not do it, and it would have to publicly say what alternative course of action it would take, rather than taking no action.

This does not go down the fine route, but it does go down the enforcement route in a different way—a potentially equally important way—and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this particular way of further enhancing the enforcement credibility and robustness of the OEP.

[Richard Graham]

I am slightly concerned about the trend of the hon. Gentleman’s line of thinking, which is very authoritarian and along the lines of “Let’s have the courts say as a default that the police are normally always right; that the county council are normally always right on issues of child welfare and so on.” That is not the way that this country operates; we believe fundamentally in freedom and an objective decision by the courts on the rights and wrongs of a particular case. Surely there is no reason why the OEP should be some sort of magical exception to that overriding rule.

[Dr Whitehead]

If the hon. Member for Gloucester were pursuing a principled position on that, he would have to undo the whole structure of regulation in this country to ensure the freedoms and the way of life that he suggests that we should follow, because that is what regulators by and large do—they quite often produce regulatory decisions and regulatory outcomes that apply to those who are being regulated. I gave the hon. Gentleman the example of Ofgem, which levies fines on bodies that appear to transgress what Ofgem has decided as a regulator. That is not a court action but relates to how the regulator works and how those who are supervised by that regulator are expected to behave. There is a direct relationship between those two, and that is the case with a range of other regulators in all sorts of other areas. For example, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of Ofcom’s regulatory activities on a number occasions, and those of Ofwat.

I am not suggesting an exceptionally authoritarian proposal that comes out of thin air in a desire to regulate people beyond what they can bear. It is based on the relationship between the regulator and the regulated and their respective actions. Normally, those who are regulated should do what the regulator suggests should happen. To me, that is not akin to the Stasi going in to everyone’s life and regulating their private thoughts out of existence. What is proposed is a reasonably standard regulatory process, as carried out on a agreed basis in this country.

Environment Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 16th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that. That is 65% of the way there. On balance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 47, in clause 75, page 67, line 20, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 48, in clause 75, page 67, line 32, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Drainage and sewerage management plans

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 200, in clause 76, page 68, line 17, at end insert—

“(ca) the water quality and impact of the discharges of the undertaker’s drainage system and sewerage system,”.

This is a probing amendment, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), myself and others. The last amendment I tabled proposed to change one word and add one letter to the Bill’s proposed environmental improvement plans. This probing amendment adds 16 words to a subsection on drainage and sewerage management plans. Both amendments have in common the shared interests of our environment and us as beneficiaries of that environment.

Amendment 200 focuses on drainage and sewerage management plans. It is an uncomfortable fact for us all that a huge amount of raw sewage is still discharged into our coasts and waterways—200,000 times in the last year, with 3,000 discharges in UK coastal waters between May and September—all of which threatens the quality of the water itself and water users. It is for that reason that 40,000 people signed a petition to end sewage pollution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow was motivated to initiate a private Member’s Bill, which will be heard in the House in due course, and to table this amendment to the Environment Bill.

Surely it is the aim of all of us to stop discharges into rivers, lakes and waterways, as well as into our sea, and to raise our current rating within Europe—although we are leaving the European Union, we are still a geographical part of Europe—from 25th out of 30 for coastal water quality. Only 16% of our waterways meet good ecological status.

Why does that matter for all of us, as users? Ultimately, there are health risks—gastroenteritis, ear, nose and throat illnesses, and apparently even, although I have not seen evidence, hepatitis and E. coli. Those of us who enjoy wild water swimming—in the River Wye, for example, on the Gloucestershire-Herefordshire border—will know that there are times when agricultural companies are pumping discharge into the water and damaging its quality and the experience, particularly for the young.

Environment Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 27, page 16, line 16, leave out

“may, if the Minister sees fit,”

and insert “must”.

At first sight, this amendment looks as if it is just another “may” and “must” amendment. I say “just”, but I think Members have got the message that this is something we are concerned about throughout the Bill. The Bill is written in such a way that Ministers may do all sorts of things, but there are very few things that they must do. It would strengthen the Bill immensely if the “mays” were converted to “musts”. The hon. Member for Falmouth and—

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Gloucester.

[Dr Whitehead]

Sorry, Gloucester—it is in the west country, so that is okay. I hope our listeners in the west country will not be offended by that comment. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said earlier, there are a considerable number of circumstances where replacing “may” with “must” could do a very good job.

This is a particularly egregious version of that “may” or “must” dilemma. Clause 27(6) states:

“The Minister concerned may…lay before Parliament—

(a) the advice, and

(b) any response the Minister may make to the advice”—

that is, the advice on changes to environmental law and so on. I have deliberately left out a little bit of that subsection. Over and above “may”, it says,

“if the Minister thinks fit”.

The preceding subsection gives the OEP a responsibility to publish advice on changes to environmental law, stating:

“The OEP must publish—

(a) its advice, and

(b) if the advice is given under subsection (1), a statement of the matter on which it was required to give advice and any matters specified under subsection (2).”

The OEP has a duty to do that—it must publish the advice.

When that advice gets to the Minister’s desk, the Minister may not feel like responding at all, and the Minister may justify the fact that he or she has not responded at all by simply saying, “Well, I didn’t think fit to do it.” That phrase is capable of any interpretation whatever. All the Minister has to do is say, “I didn’t bother to publish the advice or any response to it because I didn’t think fit to do so.” There is no objective test of that; the Minister can just decide that they do not want to do it, and that is the end of it. That is a really bad piece of drafting, and it ought to be removed. At the least, we want to see the word “may” replaced by “must”, but we also think that the additional anti-belt-and-braces device—“if the Minister thinks fit”—should be removed from the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

That is an interesting point. This clause does not appear to be able to decide whether the OEP should or should not do something. Having said that it should be a strong, independent body, to the extent that the Government are thinking about how the word “independent” may be interpreted, the Bill seems to let it perform less than its best, in terms of what that independence might consist of.

[Richard Graham]

We have seen today a number of further insinuations that the Office for Environmental Protection will be less than satisfactorily independent. This is the first time that such an office has been created in this country—it is a unique historical moment—and all the evidence we have heard so far clearly suggests that it is up to the OEP to define a large amount of its role and that the Government are giving it the opportunity to do so. Surely we should accept that this will be a great step forward and stop undermining it.

[Dr Whitehead]

It is not a question of undermining the integrity of the OEP at all. As the hon. Gentleman says, it does not exist yet, although bits of it are gradually coming into existence and may materialise in corporeal form in due course. It is therefore not easy to say that anyone in this room is undermining its performance and actions. We are talking about whether the framework within which it functions will work well or not. It is incumbent on us to ensure that, as the OEP comes into existence, the framework is as good as it can be and that the lines of its relationship with Parliament and Ministers are as clear as they should be. We are not undermining what the OEP will do; we are trying to support it by clarifying, before it is under way, what the boundaries are, how they work and who is expected to do what. That is not clear in this passage of the Bill.

Environment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It is the tradition of this House that, for good reasons, the Chair does not take responsibility for the content of right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches. The hon. Member was perfectly entitled to raise his concern, and it is now on the record. I am sure that the shadow Minister will respond if he wants to do so.

[Dr Alan Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 156, in schedule 1, page 126, line 2, leave out

‘have regard to the need to’.

This amendment makes the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement.

I apologise for de-knighting you earlier, Sir George; I will continue in the right vein. I will respond briefly to the point of order by the hon. Member for Gloucester. My intention on Tuesday was to draw attention to the principal architecture of various issues and how they might work relative to Select Committees. It was not to impugn the actions of anyone on a Select Committee or any proceedings of Select Committees. If the hon. Member for Gloucester felt that I was doing that in any way, I hope I can set the record straight this morning. As to the remarks that I made about how, in principle, Select Committees work and might have a hand in the appointments, and about the difference between those Committees having a hand in the appointments and the Government—in principle, but not necessarily in practice—not referring to them, I fully stand by those remarks for the future. I hope that that clarifies things for the hon. Gentleman.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. The key thing is that there is an important separation between the responsibilities of Select Committees and what a Government choose to do in a Bill. The implication of what he said on Tuesday was that those ideas had been well discussed, and raised previously, and that it was perfectly normal for the two relevant environmental Select Committees effectively to have hearings for non-executive directors, as well as for the chair. I thought it would be helpful to put the record straight and to say that that had never been discussed in the Environmental Audit Committee and that the Chairman had never been approached about it by anyone from any party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

We are in an interesting set of circumstances regarding these amendments, and some others that are still to come. Essentially, the Government are amending their own Bill, so on several occasions—both today and in the not-too-distant future—the Opposition may be in the position of stoutly defending the Government’s Bill while, I suspect, Government Members will stoutly defend the amendments that the Government have tabled.

We are potentially in an odd position, in that we actually do not think that the Bill is very good as it stands, particularly in terms of the protection of the independence of the OEP, but we are certainly prepared to defend it from further erosion by what we consider to be a systematic series of Government amendments that, taken together, seriously undermine the OEP’s independence of action over its life.

These amendments are the first part of that action, which took place, to our dismay, over the period the Bill was suspended. Clearly, at some stage somebody decided that the Bill was too kind to the OEP and that further restrictions should be placed on its activities and freedom of action in relation to a series of things, such as notices, environmental improvement plans, and whether the OEP can bring about a review if a subject continues to do what it was doing after a notice has been given. Previously, the Bill enabled the OEP to do that; following the amendments, it no longer can. It has had a substantial element of its freedom to act, and to act appropriately, removed by the amendments.

The other important element in this group of amendments, which will recur in a number of other areas, is, as we have raised in Committee before, the use of the word “serious”. The amendments have curtailed systematically throughout the Bill the remit of the OEP to undertake various actions on the basis of what it thinks is best in a particular set of circumstances, to the extent that before the OEP can act it has to pass a test of whether the action is regarded as serious. We have discussed how a series of differences can flow from one word. The problem with the introduction of the word “serious” in these areas of the Bill and others is that there is no definition in the Bill of what “serious” means. Let us have a guess: who can determine what “serious” means through guidance? Does anyone have any thoughts?

[Richard Graham]

The OEP.

[Dr Whitehead]

No. The Secretary of State can decide by guidance how “serious” is to be interpreted regarding the OEP’s actions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Sir George. I am sure that all Committee members will abide by your guidance in the remaining sessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney has hit the nail on the head regarding the discussion of seriousness.

[Richard Graham]

The explanatory statement to Government amendment 208 lays out clearly that

“the OEP may only bring an environmental review against a public authority if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the authority has failed to comply with environmental law”.

The explanatory statement to Government amendment 209 adds:

“The OEP may only bring an environmental review after it has given a decision notice.”

The steps are clearly laid out. Surely, we should all have confidence in the OEP doing its job as defined by the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am not sure whether the hon. Member has addressed himself to the totality of these issues. I will raise a question concerning the explanatory notes and the notes on the purport of the amendments in a subsequent debate.

The steps that the OEP must take in providing a notice are perfectly reasonable and should be undertaken; the big difference is the additional test, after those steps have been taken, as to whether the whole thing is serious or not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney rightly said, in many instances one cannot set a point at which something becomes serious or not.

[Richard Graham]

We have to be serious about this. If the borough council is not cleaning a particular street in Putney properly, that is not an issue that the OEP should immediately jump at on the evidence of one photograph from one constituent. It should not say, “Right—we must take the authority to court!” There have to be some boundaries, so the insertion of the word “serious” is surely sensible and appropriate.

[Dr Whitehead]

The central point is that it ought to be within the remit of the OEP to decide what constitutes a cumulation, to the point that something becomes serious. The amendments take that decision out of the hands of the OEP so that a serious test threshold would have to be passed before it could take action in the case of a cumulative serious problem. The hon. Gentleman can read what the amendment paper indicates about whether the OEP considers that that test has been passed.

[Richard Graham]

I fear that the shadow Minister has not read the explanatory statement clearly. It begins:

“This amendment provides that the OEP”

and refers to whether it is satisfied, and whether

“it…considers that the failure…would be serious.”

The emphasis is on the OEP. Does he not accept that?

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes. Of course the emphasis is on the OEP, but the test of what is serious is outwith the remit of the OEP. The hon. Gentleman can look at other explanatory notes in this regard. There is no definition of “serious” in the Bill. The guidance on the test of seriousness that has to be achieved is inevitably outside the Bill: it is within the remit of the Minister to decide.

As to the decision on whether something is serious enough to proceed—and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we are now talking about two different versions of “serious”—if the agency itself, in its work, thinks something is serious, I would have thought that it should be able to proceed. However, the question whether something is serious in terms of the test that must now be passed by the agencies concerned is outside the consideration of whether the agency itself thinks that something may or may not be cumulatively serious. That is a central concern that we have in this area, and other areas.

If the issue were as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why on earth would the Government amendments have been tabled in the first place? They have not been put in for a laugh—there is a serious purpose behind them, which is to put “serious” on the face of the Bill and take the definition outside the legislation, so that control of the word “serious” is outside the OEP’s remit.

Frankly, as with the old fable of the frog that does not get out of the saucepan before it boils because at no stage does it decide it is too hot for it to stay, the OEP would have no ability to pull the frog out of the saucepan at any stage. It would simply have to stand by while the frog boiled, and then refer the boiled frog to the Minister and say, “Is that serious enough and should we perhaps have done something about it beforehand?” That seems to me to be a bit of a concern about how the OEP works in the long term.

We do not intend to divide the Committee on the amendment, because we are making a general point about seriousness as part of the corpus of Government amendments that have been tabled. However, when we debate clause 23 we certainly intend to divide the Committee, for reasons that I shall set out.

Amendment 203 agreed to.

Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

As I always am, I will be polite. The Minister, with great aplomb, read out words from a piece of paper that was placed in front of her to explain what the clause means, but she must realise, as we all do, that that is total nonsense. It makes no sense at all.

Let us look at actions in various other areas of Government. The imperatives on net zero and climate change that we just passed through the House effectively apply to decision making in all Departments. Departments are not supposed to make decisions about their activities and spending without reference to those imperatives. Yet what we have on this piece of paper—I am sure it was assiduously drafted by someone seeking to defend this particular exemption—appears to drive a coach and horses through that consideration, let alone other considerations. Apparently, in taking its decisions on larger matters, the Treasury does not have to be bound by considerations on environmental protection.

I think that is a shock to all of us, because it means that the Bill is completely useless. The Treasury considers a large number of things in its policies, covering every area of practical Government activity, one way or another. If the situation is as the Minister has described, where do environmental protections stand? With any environmental protection, if it is part of the consideration of Treasury policy development, there is a door for the Treasury to run out of. As I understand it, that is what it says on the piece of paper.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Just for clarification, is the hon. Gentleman effectively saying that the Bill should provide the Treasury with an opportunity to give a blank cheque for whatever the Office for Environmental Protection requires?

[Dr Whitehead]

The phrase “due regard” comes in here, importantly. The truth is that clause 18 is a blank cheque in the opposite direction—a blank cheque for Ministers to invoke if they decide under certain circumstances not to be bound by environmental protection, as the Bill appears to suggest that we all should be. That is unconscionable; it should not be in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

That is true, but nevertheless there is the question of the extent to which that commitment itself is a freestanding commitment or additional, via EU retained law. I think the Minister will agree that there is EU retained law in respect of the Aarhus convention. While it is true that we are an individual signatory to it, we were also effectively a joint signatory to it through the EU joint law arrangement. Therefore, we were actually twofold signatories, as far as the Aarhus convention is concerned. Does the fact that we are now a onefold signatory to the Aarhus convention fully replace what it was that we were originally as a twofold signatory to the Aarhus convention? I think the Minister was saying yes, but I am not absolutely certain that that is the case.

[Richard Graham]

I am slightly confused that the shadow Minister appears to be suggesting that if we are a signatory to any convention in our own right, we are somehow a stronger signatory if we are also a signatory as part of the EU, which we have already left. Are we not straying into areas of semantics way beyond the Environment Bill today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister has yet again provided us with a description of things that happen, as opposed to what ought to happen as far as this House is concerned. On the second category of events, she appears to be saying that Select Committees may well take it upon themselves to interview and discuss candidates for posts—with the agreement of that candidate—and report back their thoughts, and that Ministers may then decide that they like or do not like what the Select Committee has said, but are pleased, in any event, that the Select Committee did that piece of work.

I do not think the Minister can show me anything in the Bill that requires that process to be cemented, so that the Secretary of State could not go ahead with an appointment without Select Committees having done that work. Let us say, for example, that the Select Committees decided that they did not want to do the work or were too busy with other matters, and the Secretary of State appointed the chair and the non-executive members of the board, there would be nothing that anyone could do about it, because nothing in the legislation says that that scrutiny has to happen. The Minister should be able to confirm that there is nothing in the legislation for that.

[Richard Graham]

I think I understand the position of the Opposition, which is to undermine slightly the independence of the new Office for Environmental Protection before it has even got under way by suggesting that the appointments process for the chair will somehow be rigged, with some crony of the Minister or the Secretary of State comfortably slotted into position. Shock, horror! That never happened under the Government of which he was a member. 

In fact, what has taken place is rather remarkable. It is much closer to an American appointments hearing than almost anything that has ever happened in relation to senior appointments to new independent offices. The idea that two—not just one but two—Select Committees would be so disinterested in their unusual and new power to scrutinise and hold to account someone who is being put forward as the first chairman of a new independent body and would completely overlook their responsibilities is surely bizarre. The hon. Member is a reasonable man. Can he not agree that this is a very good process?

Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Graham]

This is likely to be the shortest amendment proposed to the Bill. It simply substitutes the word “must” for “may” in clause 7, which would in turn require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in their environmental plan. Why does this one-word change, which amounts to a net increase of one letter to the Bill, matter so much? The clue is in clause 7(5) and its clear intent to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. The Government explicitly recognise the importance of that in the environmental improvement plan, which will set interim targets for each five-year period, and the amendment would ensure that the Bill includes people’s enjoyment in the five-year targets.

Many of us would argue that people’s enjoyment of the natural environment is always important, but it is especially so now, during the period of this pandemic. Many more of us have been enjoying green spaces during lockdown, and park visits in the UK were up 195% in the six weeks to 25 May compared with February. The amendment would put a greater legal burden on the Government to enhance access to such spaces as they set out new environmental policies in their environmental improvement plan.

The amendment acknowledges the value of parks and green spaces to all of us and all our constituents. This is a chance to appropriately fund our parks and green spaces, including the organisations that maintain them. Some of us will be aware of the Government scheme for pocket parks, which was announced by the Communities Secretary in March 2020. It was a £1.35 million fund—a very small fund by comparison with many of those that have had to be launched to support businesses, culture and many other organisations—and it created 68 new pocket parks around the country in order to transform urban spaces into green havens. They were hugely helpful, and I believe that further rounds would be both welcome and possible. They would help fund the priorities identified in the five-year targets for people’s enjoyment that should be created.

At this stage, I would like to bring as a remote witness the Ramblers organisation, which has made the point that access to, and enjoyment of, the natural environment has multiple benefits that are relevant to the aims of the Bill and to wider Government objectives. They include encouraging pro-environmental behaviours. There is evidence to suggest that people who spend more recreational time in natural settings are more likely to report engaging in a range of pro-environmental behaviours. In simple speech, that can often amount to volunteers joining litter-picking groups to ensure that our parks and green space are kept clean and are attractive to more visitors.

A survey shows that 85% of adults in England and Wales believe that being able to experience the countryside is important for children’s understanding of the environment. I think that is true in all our constituencies. In my constituency of Gloucester, we have the joy of the Robinswood Hill country park right in the middle of our small city. I believe that every child should have the experience of sitting on their mother’s or father’s shoulders for their first visit up the hill to watch the sunset over the River Severn in the summer. It is one of the most beautiful things that anyone can do, and it stimulates enjoyment and healthy behaviours.

There is also the issue of physical and mental health. More than eight out of 10 adults believe that visiting the countryside is good for their physical fitness and mental wellbeing. In a sense, we do not really need surveys to confirm that; we know it is true. People who live within 500 metres of accessible green space are 24% more likely to achieve the 30 minutes of daily physical activity that doctors constantly recommend. Access to green space is associated with reductions in long-term conditions such as heart disease and cancer, and close connections to green space are also associated with significantly less income-related health inequality, weakening the effects of deprivation on health. During the pandemic, there has been a huge increase in mental health problems, and during a lockdown period green spaces are in many ways people’s one chance of restoring some balance to their mental health.

In the current 25-year environment plan, which will be given statutory footing on Royal Assent, there are broad aspirations on engagement with the natural environment, but there are opportunities to improve them. I will turn briefly to some of the aspects that could be addressed. Evidence shows that access to nature and the outdoors is not entirely equal: for example, children in lower income areas and people from black, Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds have the poorest access to green spaces and the natural environment. That is not always the case—in my constituency of Gloucester, the ward that is closest to Gloucester park, Barton and Tredworth, is also the area with the highest concentration of ethnic background diversity—but in general, access to the outdoors is unequal in our larger cities compared with towns or countryside.

The amendment would make a substantial difference by requiring the Government to take a strategic and coherent approach to issues of access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. Some non-governmental organisations have suggested that the amendment might put people’s enjoyment over the value of the natural environment to wildlife—that, for example, people and the environment are in competition and their goals are necessarily incompatible—but I reject that suggestion, because I believe that there are very clear examples of how people and the environment go well together.

The easiest way to shine a light on that is by talking about sensory gardens, which, as many of us know, are a frequent feature in schools that handle people with the greatest physical disabilities. Years ago, my family helped to raise funds for a sensory garden that was full of biodiversity. Not only was it a wonderful environmental joy, but it brought great joy to those with disabilities who attended the school. It is important therefore that the amendment be seen not as pro-people and anti-environment, but as pro-people and pro-environment.

Nor is the amendment intended purely to benefit urban dwellers—far from it. Aspects of it will hugely benefit the countryside as well. Research commissioned by the National Trust estimates that people across Great Britain are missing out on 500 million park visits a year because of poorly equipped facilities. Basic facility upgrades, from toilets and income-generating cafés to play areas, can help accessibility; litter collection, which I have already mentioned, is also incredibly important. Natural England has reported that insufficient footpaths in the presence of busy or dangerous roads can prevent easy access and deter their use. One in eight households has no access to a private or shared garden, a figure that rises to 21% of households in London, which highlights the importance of enjoyment of our green spaces.

Overall, parks in England deliver an estimated £6.5 billion of health, climate change and environmental benefits every year, including £2.2 billion in avoided health costs alone. It is not for me to challenge those figures; I think we can all intuitively relate to them, and I hope that as guesstimates, which are inevitably imprecise, those are as accurate as they can be. For every £1 spent on parks in England, an estimated £7 in additional wealth is generated for health and wellbeing and the environment.

These anecdotal examples of evidence, surveys and research make a strong case for making sure that the people’s enjoyment of our public spaces is included in the Bill as a “must”, rather than a “may”. In a sense, the Environment Secretary showed his support for such concepts in July 2020 in a speech announcing £4 million for a two-year pilot project to bring green prescribing to four areas hit hardest by coronavirus, saying:

“Studies across the spectrum, from health to financial risk, remind us that it is in our best interests to look after nature. We know that a connection with nature contributes to wellbeing and improved mental health.”

I could not agree more. I know that the Minister who is taking the Bill through the House, and whose whole career in the House of Commons has been dedicated to working on the environment, shares those feelings.

I draw attention to two other aspects. First, in September 2019, Julian Glover published his independent “Landscapes Review”, sometimes known as the Glover review, into whether protections for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are fit for purpose. The Government have not yet formally responded to that review, but I believe they are broadly supportive. Its proposals include:

“A stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes, supported and held to account by the new National Landscapes Service”,

and,

“A night under the stars in a national landscape for every child”.

What a wonderful idea. Millions of children in this country have never had the chance to do that, and if this could stimulate that experience, what could be better? Also proposed is:

“New long-term programmes to increase the ethnic diversity of visitors”.

That has to be the right way forward. Different ethnic communities in my city have not had the same experiences in enjoying our national parks. We need to encourage them, and to make sure that national parks are seen as open, accessible and to be enjoyed by everyone. The proposals continue:

“Expanding volunteering in our national landscapes”,

and,

“A ranger service in all our national landscapes, part of a national family”.

All those recommendations, alongside the nature recovery network that is part of the Bill and that aims to join up green spaces and landscapes, only emphasise the value of replacing “may” with “must” in the Bill, which will help to achieve some of the recommendations.

My one-word amendment has the backing of the Conservative Environment Network, which my hon. Friend the Minister and I were founder members of. It has the support of the Ramblers, as well as the support of all the heritage organisations that come together in a group chaired by a former colleague of ours. Some of those aspects are reflected in amendment 202, which no doubt somebody else will talk to. It highlights the importance of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural and historical interest in our parks.

I particularly draw the attention of those listening from my constituency to the great Jurassic landscape in Robinswood Hill country park; stones that are millions of years old are sitting there on our doorstep. Having been a civil servant in another life, I recognise that no Department welcomes changes to its Bills, and that “must” implies additional responsibilities and work that is unlikely to be welcomed; however, I believe that this one-word change is a worthwhile measure. My hon. Friend the Minister is likely to have only one chance to lead a major new environmental Bill through the House. She will want it to be as strong and successful as possible. All Members on the Government Benches and, I suspect, on both sides of the House, share her ambition. I move this probing amendment in the hope that she will see this one written word as an entirely positive contribution to the spirit and intent of the environmental plan and the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

I commend the hon. Member for Gloucester on bringing the amendment forward. It is an important amendment in its own right. It is also important in terms of something we did at the beginning of the Bill and which was briefly discussed during the earlier stages in the spring. The Bill is littered with “mays” where there ought to be “musts” and we drew attention to about 25 instances where there are “mays” in place and they should be “musts”.

Environment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman says we must have guidelines; I agree with him totally, but in fact the guidelines are there in the legislation. Clause 1 lays out specifically what the standard means and the date by which it is to be achieved, which cannot be more than 15 years after the date on which the target is initially set. The guidelines are there, and clause 2, in seven crisp bullets, gives more detail about what is expected of the Secretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment looks, on appearance, to be a modest word or two, but what he is trying to achieve is a rewriting of clauses 1, 2 and 3 altogether, setting not the guideline, but a very specific target and deadline. I cannot help wondering whether the deadline, which is before January 2030, is not linked specifically to the Labour party conference motion that called for net zero carbon by 2030—something his own Front Bench has rejected, accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s target of net zero by 2050.

[Dr Whitehead]

Those are two different things.

[Richard Graham]

They are indeed, but the date is, by coincidence, the same.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a bit like thinking that, if there are two bodies in different parts of the country, they must be connected because they are two bodies. It does not follow, to be honest, because they are not connected.

[Richard Graham]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman saying that they are not connected. The two dates happen to be the same, so there is a connection. It is not like two bodies in different parts of the country. The key thing is that the guidelines for which he calls are there; the deadline for which he calls is a separate thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 6, page 4, line 41, at end insert—

“(9) In carrying out a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets relating to the priority areas in section 1 that are contained in legislation which forms part of the law of England and Wales—

(a) have expired, or

(b) are required to be achieved by a date which has passed.

(10) If paragraph (a) or (b) applies, then the significant environmental improvement test is only met if a new target or targets are set relating to the same matters which specify a new standard and a future date by which such standards must be reached.”

This amendment prevents the targets from meeting the significant improvement test through virtue of being out of date and so more easily achieved.

The amendment seeks to ensure that—

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Sir Roger, am I right in thinking that we have got roughly halfway down page 1 of the selection list, and still have more than three full pages to go? By your calculation, are we on time to complete this business by 6 pm? If we are not, would it be possible for the Opposition to consider which of the amendments they most want to discuss, debate in detail and to push to a vote?

Environment Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

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

[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.

Pension Funds: Financial and Ethical Investments

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) on securing this debate. I think he slightly understated the carbon bubble in his opening remarks. The carbon bubble—basically the evaluation of assets that we know will never be realised—is not something that might burst in the not too distant future. It will inevitably burst because energy companies have systematically overvalued their assets and put them on their balance sheets. Not only will the historical overvaluing be in question, but all the valuing for the future will be in question, basically in line with where we now know we have got to go on net zero in our economies.

I prefer to call the carbon bubble a carbon boil. I am afraid the image is rather poor, but what we can do with a boil is lance it before it bursts, and that is the exercise we should be engaged in right now. The suggestions that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton put forward for doing that were sound. However, pension funds are complicit in the carbon boil/bubble because, by and large, they consider their fiduciary duty to be about getting the best for their pensioners over the next few years. They do not generally look at the long term, and do not think they are required to do so as far as their funds are concerned. The Governor of the Bank of England recently described it as

“the tragedy of the horizon”.

[Richard Graham]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman and others, it is perfectly possible for pension fund trustees to take the view that their fiduciary duty of obtaining good returns to deliver the pensions expected is not incompatible with taking into account huge amounts of other issues, including climate change. It is important that we all recognise that. We have a duty to look at that as well.

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some pension funds are beginning to take a different view. Indeed, that different view is becoming more possible, but the general consideration of the fiduciary duty remains a short-term gain for pensioners in the funds. Of course, the people setting out on their working lives will not get the benefit of those pension funds for 30 or 40 years. During that time inevitably we have to move to the net zero carbon economy. It is therefore essential that pension funds have a duty to look at the long term.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Whitehead

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I are going to agree substantially on this. We regard the Bill as necessary in the context of the possibility that, after Brexit, no arrangements can be brought about with Euratom, either associate membership or full membership. The Bill will then ensure that the nuclear industry is clear about its future and that the arrangements for our international obligations can be properly carried out in the absence of those arrangements. We have indeed been constructive and helpful during the Bill’s whole passage through Parliament. However, that does not detract from our thinking that a number of its procedural elements should be strengthened in relation to what we do while it is gestating and coming to potential fruition after the point at which the things that we are doing may not have had any success.

The hon. Gentleman will see that in some of our amendments we are also trying to make sure that Parliament is fully informed of what processes are under way while we get to the position that the Bill could, or could not, come into operation. That is important for Parliament’s sake. After all, we are in new territory with regard to this Bill, and we therefore have to do a number of new things in legislation that fit the bill for our future arrangements. That is essentially the beginning and end of what we are trying to do through this group of amendments.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am puzzled why new clause 1 is necessary. All its ingredients are issues that form part of the transition negotiations that our country is going through with the European Commission. It therefore seems bizarre to try to legislate that

“conditions under which the UK is a member of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply”

during the transition. On that basis, we would be legislating for all sorts of things that form part of the negotiations to continue during the transition. What would the hon. Gentleman say to that?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly got ahead of me, because I started by talking about new clause 2, and I am about to start talking about new clause 1. He thinks that new clause 1 may be superfluous. I would suggest that because this Bill is about procedure as much as fact, the new clause sets out a procedure that we need to undertake in the event of certain things not happening, and it is important that a number of those possible events are covered in the Bill. Should it not prove possible to remain a member of Euratom, for various reasons, it is important to consider the idea of a transition period after which we would then be in a position to fully carry out our obligations to the IAEA and other agencies separate from Euratom. That, indeed, is what the Bill is essentially trying to bring about. The Bill is predicated on the notion that membership or association with Euratom will not be possible, and it is therefore necessary to recreate the arrangements for nuclear safeguarding that have served us so well in a solely domestic form and thereby enabled us to negotiate separate voluntary arrangements with the IAEA and, indeed, separate bilateral agreements with a number of other countries, including the United States, Australia, Japan, and Canada.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I would have thought that the Bill, in whatever form it eventually emerges, demonstrates the opposite. Yes, there are a number of negotiations to be undertaken. We do not yet know the results of those negotiations. We have not left Euratom, which, it is generally agreed, has served our purposes very well. The new clause would enable us to signal, in the event of all those negotiations not working, that we are nevertheless still able to fulfil our obligations to the IAEA and to show it that we have a regime in place that does the business with regard to nuclear safeguarding from the point of view of the IAEA’s concerns. Putting forward this Bill as a contingency measure, as the Secretary of State said was the case, is important in the uncertain position we are in at the moment. Nevertheless, we will need certainty, over a relatively short period, with the bodies that are responsible for policing and organising the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the whole arrangements relating to nuclear safeguarding. I think, if I may say so, that that is the right way to do it as far as putting a Bill before the House is concerned. The Opposition do not dispute that: we think it is right to have the Bill as a contingency. Our concern, however, is whether there are sufficient elements to the process part of the Bill to ensure that it works as well as it could. That is really the point of difference on the Bill at the moment.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is incredibly important to him and several of his colleagues, and it is incredibly important to me, with EDF Energy’s operational headquarters for nuclear in my constituency and Horizon just down the road, so we are all coming from the same point. His specific proposal—I am talking about new clause 1 again—is very specific. It even mentions a period of two years, although the transition period that is being negotiated may well come to an end at the end of 2020. In effect, he is asking the Government to legislate on something over which they do not have control. Surely the better approach is to plan for the contingency, as he has already agreed, and recognise that the other elements—Euratom and other agencies—are all subject to a negotiation that this House cannot, by its nature, control.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a little strange in that the Prime Minister referred to transition periods for the overall EU negotiations in her Florence speech, and the Secretary of State did so strongly in his written statement on 11 January. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be assured, as far as the nuclear industry is concerned, that there will be a seamless transition at the point at which we are no longer a member of Euratom, I would have thought he ought to be strongly in favour of aspiring to a transition period. As he knows and we know, the process of recreating in the UK all the things that have been done by Euratom for 40 years—we will discuss that later—will be extremely difficult, lengthy and problematic. It will certainly, in the opinion of many people, be extremely difficult to achieve in the period ahead if we corral those negotiations and are to complete them by March 2019. If he thought about it for a moment, he would recognise that the last thing we could conceivably want is a period of, in effect, nuclear shutdown, or of defaulting on our international obligations because we are not ready to carry them out on Brexit. That is why a transition period may be so important.

[Richard Graham]

Yes, of course we all want a transition period, which is precisely a part of the negotiations. What I struggle to understand is that the scenario the hon. Gentleman describes is in effect not within our control. The transition we are seeking is being negotiated—in fact, the Minister and other Front Benchers have made it absolutely clear several times that we want to continue the relationship with Euratom as deeply as possible—but I cannot see the need, in a legislative context, for his proposed new clause 1. In fact, I do not believe it would be possible for any Government conceivably to agree to it.