Environment Bill
Debate between Robert Goodwill and Greg KnightMonday 28th October 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), on whose Environmental Audit Committee I served until March this year, when I was called back to the Front Bench, but here I am again back on the Back Benches.
For many years, our core environmental policies had been jointly agreed at EU level, with proposals from the European Commission being amended and confirmed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Indeed, I served in the European Parliament between 1999 and 2004 on the environment committee, so many of the directives and regulations currently in force were agreed when I was there. Indeed, I attended many of the conciliation meetings late into the night that hammered out the detail of much of this legislation.
Leaving the European Union gives us an opportunity to take back control and to move forwards, not backwards. The Bill will secure the progress that we have made on a wide range of environmental priorities and put in place the framework needed to keep pace with EU and global standards. It will also allow us to take the lead in setting new levels of performance: we will no longer have to move at the speed of the slowest.
Sir Greg Knight
I agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. Does he agree that we could help to improve standards in food labelling by tightening up requirements?
Mr Goodwill
Indeed. We now have the freedom to do that.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) was worried about incinerators being built in his constituency, but it is European policy to phase out landfill and replace it with clean incinerators that operate under the standards imposed by the large combustion plants directive. Leaving the EU means that we could go back to dirty, polluting landfill instead of having cleaner incinerators, but I do not believe that that is the way forward.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) talked about the military. When passing legislation in Europe on vehicle emissions, I recall that there was almost always an exception for military use for vehicles and for noise, particularly for aircraft.
The hon. Member for Wakefield made a good point about our progress in improving many of our environmental standards since becoming a member of the European Union. Our rivers are cleaner, we have salmon in rivers where they have never been seen before, and our bathing water is cleaner. Indeed, the new standards that have been brought in have often led people to believe that we are going backwards, because beaches that had passed under the previous standards then failed when the standards were tightened up. While we can set ambitious and challenging new standards, we must ensure that people are aware of when we have made progress, even if we fail to hit the higher standards. Legislation was introduced at the same time as privatisation and meant that investment in water quality did not have to join the queue behind hospitals, schools and the other priorities of Government. It was privatisation that allowed us to deliver on such great projects as the Burniston sewage works in my constituency, the £50 million storm water tank in Scarborough and the new Irton water treatment works that are being built. The real risk to our water quality is not from leaving the EU but from nationalisation, which would once again mean investment in water quality having to join the queue behind other priorities, such as the NHS.
While we were in Europe we passed the REACH regulations and the chemicals registration legislation, which meant that we tested a back catalogue of chemicals, at a cost of £6 billion, during the course of which 100,000 animals were tested. We must not have to redo all that work and test all those animals alone. Although we are transferring responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive, we should not go it alone. Indeed, in the political declaration on 10 October, we talked about exploring the possibility of co-operation. I believe that associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency is the right way forward, while at the same time retaining the right to independence, so that if political decisions are made on chemicals such as glyphosate, we can do our own thing.
I was pleased to see the compulsory recall of vehicles in the legislation. Having been a Transport Minister at the time of the Volkswagen debacle, I think that is important. Clause 50 and schedule 10, on plastic return, are important, so long as we ensure that any schemes put in place are carbon-negative. Schemes such as reusable bottles can look good at the outset but can often mean transporting heavy glass around the country.
There are concerns in urban areas about the restrictions on coal and wood for burning, particularly for steam vehicles—I own one—and about access to coal, and also in rural areas, where no gas is available. I was pleased to see clause 63, which deals with litter. Maybe council enforcement officers could do other work in that area—for instance, on parking.
I hope to be fortunate enough to serve on the Bill Committee. Leaving the EU is an opportunity for our environment. This Bill gives us the tools we need to fully exploit those opportunities.
Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting)
Debate between Robert Goodwill and Greg KnightThursday 19th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 View all Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Greg Knight
I am grateful for that example. My hon. Friend clearly has an unknown admirer, because I doubt that happens on many occasions.
The advisory code of practice is currently being formulated. I am grateful to the Minister, because after the House gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, he immediately started consulting on what should be in the code of practice. I have been to some of those consultation sessions to listen to what other people are saying. The code, although not yet ready for publication, is coming along very well indeed.
A summary on the code is available and has been distributed to Members. I will refer to a few aspects of it. There will be obligations on the operators of private car parks in the code, which will include the type of “equipment and technology used”, “clear signage”,
“clear and accessible displays of the terms and conditions”,
and the requirement that there be a transaction period and a grace period.
We need to ensure that a motorist has a choice before committing him or herself to park in a particular car park. With the advent of CCTV cameras, in some cases what happens is that a vehicle registration plate is recorded upon the motorist entering the car park. The motorist then sees the terms that apply to the car park and decides not to park there, but gets a ticket because the car was seen going in and coming out. That cannot be right. There must be a grace period of five or 10 minutes—perhaps even longer in a multi-storey car park—which would allow the motorist to change his or her mind.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you. I myself witnessed a situation in Haworth. There was a notorious parking firm operating using clamps, which have now been outlawed. In that case, a couple who had parked their car went to a nearby shop to enact a small transaction in order to get some change. In that short time, they were blocked in by the parking company vehicle and clamped. They can no longer clamp, but these scoundrels are reverting to other methods, which my right hon. Friend’s Bill will prevent.
Sir Greg Knight
That is indeed the case. I am moving down the coast; I am now going to Clacton.
High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3)
Debate between Robert Goodwill and Greg Knight(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Goodwill
I would extend that praise to the other members of the Committee, who have dealt very well with people who can be nervous in that situation. I should also like to take this opportunity to praise the work done by my officials at HS2, who have gone the extra mile to address some of the petition issues before they even needed to reach the Committee.
As intended, the process has led to many sensible changes to the scheme in order to address the needs and concerns of petitioners. Some of the changes have been agreed by HS2 Ltd dealing directly with petitioners, and some were recommended in the Select Committee’s recent interim report, to which the Government responded on 4 June. Many changes can be accommodated using existing powers, but some require the powers in the Bill to be extended—for example, when a change requires the use of land that is not included in the Bill. In such circumstances, an additional provision is required. This is effectively a mini-hybrid Bill, with its own environmental statement and petitioning period for those “directly and specially affected” by the changes.
The motion relates to an additional provision that, subject to it being passed, the Government intend to deposit on 13 July. The additional provision contains 125 changes, along the line of route beyond Camden, that have resulted from the petitioning process and from HS2 Ltd’s continued development of the design of the railway. The changes are mostly of a minor nature. They include the realignment of access routes and the diversion of footpaths following discussions with affected landowners, or the relocation of areas of ecological mitigation to reduce the impacts on farming operations. I am tempted to say that this is a tidying-up process, but I recall that that was how some described the Lisbon treaty.
There are, however, proposals for three significant changes. As already announced, we propose to realign the route in the Lichfield area so that it runs in a cutting rather than on an embankment, as well as moving the route away from the Trent and Mersey canal. This will enable the line to go under the A38, the South Staffordshire railway and the west coast main line, which will significantly reduce the visual impact of the railway in the area. I hope the House will welcome this example of the promoter seeking to take on board petitioners’ concerns and integrate them into the HS2 project where we are able to do so. I am particularly pleased that, in this case, the solution will be less expensive to deliver.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will the Minister tell the House what effect those route changes will have on the proposed journey times?
Mr Goodwill
They will have no effect at all on the journey times. This is about delivering the project by and large as planned. HS2 is more about capacity than it is about journey times. This is about addressing the real capacity issues that we have on our rail network, particularly between Birmingham and London.
The most significant other change concerns the Heathrow Express depot. It is currently located at Old Oak Common, but it needs to be relocated in order to construct the new Old Oak Common station. It was originally intended to be moved to another site nearby, but more detailed operational work undertaken by Network Rail since the Bill’s deposit has revealed that that site would not work operationally. We therefore propose to relocate the depot to a site in Langley, near Slough.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Goodwill and Greg Knight(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Goodwill
The need-to-sell scheme will be operating in the new year, and we are currently consulting on it. I must point out that part of the skills agenda is investment in skills for tunnelling. We are engaging in unprecedented levels of tunnelling to limit environmental impacts. The skills college will be a hub-and-spoke arrangement, and we are looking for colleges that can teach environmental skills to engage with it so that we can deliver on our promise of no net biodiversity loss.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Cycling
Debate between Robert Goodwill and Greg Knight(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I thank the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for securing the debate and my hon. and special Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for fundamentally undermining Labour’s pledges on spending. Given that the shadow Chancellor holds their purse strings, Labour Members are unable to make any commitments whatever on this matter.
I am pleased to see in the House such great enthusiasm for cycling, as I, too, am passionate about cycling. Indeed, I was a member of the all-party group until my promotion prevented me from continuing to be so. It was the first time I saw a Brompton bike being unfolded at an all-party group meeting that prompted me to buy one of those wonderful machines, which are made in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said he was preaching to the converted. I plead guilty; I am one of the converted and nobody needs to persuade me of the benefits of cycling both for individuals and for our country as a whole.
Today’s debate is timely. Just this morning, as promised by the Prime Minister in August last year, we published our draft 10-year strategy for cycling in England, entitled the cycling delivery plan. I point out that walking features in it, too, and that one of our targets relates to walking to school. The delivery plan reflects the views of a high-level stakeholder group on cycling, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their input.
The delivery plan is a 10-year one for England and deals with how central Government, local government, business, the third sector and the public can all work together to help grow cycling in different parts of England. I ask the hon. Member for Dudley North to read it because there is such a lot in it. His speech suggested that the glass was half empty, so let me tell him it is more than half full. I hope he will take heart from some of the important announcements and commitments we make.
I am pleased that we have moved on from the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) gave his speech on his rather revolutionary ideas. I am pleased that many of these ideas are not only mainstream, but in the plan.
We have already seen the start of a cycling revolution in London, and we want to replicate this trend elsewhere, so that the nation as a whole can reap the benefits of cycling. We all know that the benefits of cycling are many and wide reaching: it helps reduce congestion on our roads, as we have heard; it helps cut pollution in our environments; and it can help individuals to become fitter and healthier. Regular cycling can help lose weight, reduce stress and boost health. I can let the House into a little secret: when I entered the European Parliament, I quickly put on 2 stone and lost it only after I bought a new bicycle. I seem to be a testament to that particular health benefit.
Regular cycling is also good for the economy. Cycling supports businesses through producing more motivated and productive staff who miss fewer days due to sickness and absence. Increased cycling and walking will save the NHS billions in the cost of treating diabetes, heart disease and mental ill health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out in his speech. Cycling in inner-city areas reduces congestion and often proves to be the quickest, most reliable way of travelling for short- to-medium distance trips. Indeed, that is how I travel here each day. Last but not least, increased cycling gives rise to a local, creative, innovative and sustainable industry consisting mostly of small and medium-sized enterprises.
In view of all those benefits, it is no wonder that the Government are serious about cycling, and that they have provided twice as much funding for it as the last Administration. Given that £374 million—or £622 million if we include match funding—is being committed between 2011 and 2015, investment in cycling is currently about £5 per person, up from the £2 at which it stood when we came to office.
Among the key recommendations in the APPG’s report “Get Britain Cycling” was a call for sustained investment to bring us into line with other European countries. It is clear that the Government are moving in the right direction. We recognise that we need to explore how local government can go further than that £5 per person, which is why our cycling delivery plan states:
“The Government’s aspiration is that—working with local government, and businesses, we can together explore how we can achieve a minimum funding packet equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21—and sooner if possible.”
This is the first time that the Government have included that £10 figure in a document, and I have to say that, having let the genie out of the bottle, I intend to do nothing to try to put it back.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on what they have done. However, in my constituency, I recently saw four cyclists travelling two abreast on a stretch of the highway that ran parallel to a dedicated cycle path. Does my hon. Friend think that when cyclists take such action without justification they should be deemed to be committing an offence?