Improving Air Quality

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Health and Social Care Committee, makes a good point. Once we have the money, there are limitless things we can do with it. The unfortunate fact is that we do not have the money at the moment. I think the Government have felt that. Walking, cycling and altering the way we go about our daily lives is all good. It is good for our health, and it gets us out of our cars.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that money would be well spent because, if we succeed in getting more people on to their bicycles or walking, it will deliver long-term savings both to physical healthcare and mental healthcare and create better communities?

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady, who chairs the Transport Committee, is absolutely right that the money would be well spent. Our health would be improved, and therefore we would save money on the NHS and we would be able to spend the money in other ways.

Why are there private individuals in this country who are prepared to bring a case against VW, yet we, as a Government, have singly failed? I would be interested if the Minister could give us some insight into why we allow private people, quite rightly, to bring a case, yet the Government are not supporting them and are not bringing a case themselves.

There is not a satisfactory system for overseeing how money is spent to improve our air quality. Our report finds that Departments are clearly failing to work together. The Government have promised some modest improvements, and I am sure the House looks forward to an update on that in the very near future, perhaps even today.

The Government response tells us that a consistent approach was taken to appraising the cost of air pollution, yet during our joint Committee hearings I was deeply concerned to learn that the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), was not even aware of how much economic impact air pollution has on the UK.

It is clear that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and Social Care and local authorities not only need to collaborate more effectively but need to collaborate, full stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and I look forward to the speeches by my fellow Select Committee Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston).

I am afraid that this is a rather sorry tale of inaction and buck passing. Fault lies not with one party but with successive Governments. The efforts so far have been inadequate and have been characterised by a lack of urgency. We know the problems that poor air quality causes. It affects our health and our environment and, as has already been said, as many as 40,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of poor air quality. The elderly, the unwell and the economically deprived are those most likely to be affected. The Government estimate that poor air quality costs the UK economy £27.5 billion a year.

We also know where the problem occurs. Key pollutants include nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter, known as PM_2.5. More than 85% of air quality zones in the UK—37 out of 43—exceeded EU nitrogen dioxide limits in 2016. They should have been compliant in 2010, and the Government think it will be 2026 before all 43 zones in the UK are compliant. The World Health Organisation tells us there is no safe level of exposure to fine particulate matter.

We know what causes poor air quality. It comes from several sources: industry, agriculture, homes, businesses and transport. Progress has been made, but it is stalling, and we are in breach of our legal obligations. Road transport is responsible for about 80% of nitrogen oxide concentrations at places in the UK that exceed legal limits, with diesel engines a significant contributor. The number of cars and vans on our roads continues to rise, and congestion has worsened, which increases pollution in itself. Although diesel cars have become less popular since the VW scandal was uncovered in 2015, for more than a decade before that the trend was in the opposite direction.

Transport also generates a significant proportion of particulate matter, from both combustion, and wear on tyres and brake pads. The Government have largely relied on cleaner vehicles to solve the problem, and limits on emissions, which are gradually tightened with each iteration of the euro standards, have helped us make some progress but not enough. Real world emissions have not fallen as promised, and renewing the fleet could take 15 years or more. Policies to accelerate this process, such as scrappage schemes, may be needed. The science, historical evidence and impact are clear, but we still have not taken the action that is needed. Three times the Government’s strategy has been found wanting by the courts, and the UK faces large fines by the EU Commission, along with other countries, for not bringing air quality within legal limits. We know the solutions that are needed, so it is shocking that successive Governments have failed to take the necessary action.

Nationally and locally there are examples of good things happening. In my own city there has been considerable investment in public transport, with major extensions to our tram network, and that was supported by the coalition Government. Last year, Nottingham’s municipal bus company introduced new biogas buses, and work has begun to retrofit its entire fleet of diesel buses by autumn 2019. Last week, on Clean Air Day, the city council launched an anti-idling campaign, mirroring similar action in other towns and cities across the UK. As I have said, the Department for Transport has supported the development of low emission buses and taxis, has regulated maritime emissions, is supporting low emission vehicles and alternative fuels, and has lead work on the development of real driving emissions standards.

So what has gone wrong—why have we not solved this problem? The first issue we found in this regard was collaboration. That is not a problem that can be fixed by central Government or local government alone—they need to work together. At present, action is too fragmented, lacks clear leadership, and is not properly costed or resourced. There are no fiscal measures that support long-term behaviour change in a meaningful way. Local authorities are already responsible for meeting air quality limits but find it difficult to make changes, partly due to lack of resources, but partly because the changes needed are politically unpalatable. Our joint Select Committee report called for ambitious, co-ordinated, cross-departmental action. Sadly, the Government’s new draft strategy says almost nothing about emissions from cars, and we are still waiting for the Department to publish its strategy “Road to Zero”. That simply does not seem very joined-up.

It is vital that we encourage the uptake of clean technologies and remove the most polluting vehicles from our roads, but the Government rejected a more ambitious target for ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars before 2040. Today, Lord Deben, chair of the Committee on Climate Change, echoed our call in the drive to meet targets on carbon emissions. There are rumours that the “Road to Zero” will water down the commitment to end sales of diesel and petrol cars even further, and I hope that this latest intervention will prompt Ministers to think again.

The Government also need to accelerate the switch to ultra low emission vehicles, and that requires a network of charging points, particularly for rapid charging, and a strategy for on-street residential charging.

[Dr Huq]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in London we have made significant progress, with the current Mayor bringing forward the ultra low emission zone and with the proposed toxicity charge? However, sadly, a lot of this seems to have been undermined by this week’s decision—I know she voted the right way—to have an extra runway in Heathrow. People in west London are lamenting that, and I regret that a lot of the good work in her report was ignored by the Government’s national policy statement.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend. She rightly says that a lot of work has been done in London, yet it still faces a huge challenge on air quality. That is one reason why our Select Committee report on the airports NPS calls for extra safeguards on air quality. Obviously, Parliament did vote for the NPS and the Secretary of State has now designated it, but it is essential he keeps his promises on air quality.

It is also vital that the public sector leads, demonstrating what is possible. The Government could set dates by which their car fleet will all be ULEVs. Local authorities, the NHS and other large public bodies could do the same with their fleets. It is not just on road transport where the Government are less ambitious than they might be. The decision to row back from electrification of our railways in favour of bi-mode trains has worrying implications for air quality, carbon emissions and noise. Of course, our Committee has also published a report on rail investment today. Those look more like decisions taken in isolation than decisions taken under the umbrella of an overarching strategy.

There is a danger that the Government rely too heavily on new technologies to solve our air quality challenges, placing too much emphasis on cleaning up road vehicles and not enough on reducing the number of vehicles on our roads. Improving public transport and encouraging active travel should lie at the heart of any clean air strategy. Our four committees concluded that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport must work closely with local authorities to ensure that councils introducing clean air zones receive the support they need to implement complementary measures that encourage car drivers to switch to public transport and active travel, as well as increasing the take-up of electric vehicles. Yet modal shift and active travel—walking and cycling—hardly get a mention in the Government’s draft strategy.

Investment in low emission buses is great but the value of such investments is magnified if local authorities also take steps to encourage motorists to opt for buses rather than making journeys by car. The latest passenger statistics show that bus patronage is falling and rail passenger numbers are also down. It is too early to say whether that is a blip or the start of a trend, but the Government should be concerned. Is the policy response in line with the strategy the Government tell us they want to have? Well, not really—the cost of rail and bus travel are rising faster than the cost of motoring. The Government’s own assumptions appear to show that, as things stand, they accept that their policies will not deliver a financial incentive to encourage or support modal shift. Without some action, whether on fuel duty or charging zones, efforts to tackle congestion or improve air quality are less likely to succeed. It would be helpful if the Government were to articulate more clearly than they have what they want to achieve on modal shift and how they will deliver that, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments today.

The Government also need to create a framework in which local authorities have the resources and powers they need to act. The new expectations on councils on air quality come at a time when they are already facing huge funding pressures. The Government must provide all local authorities breaching nitrogen dioxide limit levels with access to the financial resources they need to tackle them. Responsibility for providing those resources should not lie only with the public sector: following the principle that the polluter should pay, the private sector should be asked to contribute to a clean air fund. As hon. Members have said, Volkswagen and other car manufacturers that cheated emissions tests should be held to account. Our Select Committee has repeatedly raised this issue with Ministers and the lack of action is deeply disappointing.

Policies and action at local level also need supporting national polices and a public debate that makes it less difficult to implement things that may not be universally popular. Our ambitions for cleaner air, with the associated public health and environmental benefits, cannot succeed without action by local authorities, businesses and communities. The sustained improvements we have seen in air quality in the past can be continued only if Government action—legislative, policy, taxation, and spending—is co-ordinated and working in tandem with other players. By failing to act in a joined-up way, the Government are not just undermining their air quality strategy; they are missing opportunities for synergies that would help deliver on other policy goals. For example, many of the policies needed to tackle urban congestion could also help to improve air quality, and tackling both could have a positive effect on the local and national economy. A significant increase in active travel could make a difference to policies on tackling obesity, improving mental health and building better communities. Action on air quality could help to reduce carbon emissions. The realisation of the wider benefits cannot be left to happen by chance.

Action on poor air quality is long overdue. There are things we can do—this is not a problem without a solution—but if the Government do not show leadership, nothing will change. We have passed the point where more of the same will do the job; the courts have made that clear. Bold, ambitious and innovative polices are needed to create the right framework for action—a framework within which national policies support and encourage the right kinds of action at a local level. The Government have launched a consultation on their clean air strategy, but its lack of focus on transport emissions looks complacent, falling well short of what we recommended in our joint report. I hope that Ministers will heed our calls today and redouble their efforts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bradshaw]

I completely agree.

UNICEF brought out a shocking report last week, which said that one in three children in the United Kingdom are now growing up in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution. It has been widely acknowledged across the House that successive Governments have had insufficient urgency in dealing with this problem. The Government have finally published their draft strategy but, as others have said, it is just not good enough. It is full of further prevarication, delays and half-measures. It passes the buck to local government, which is in many areas under-resourced and under-qualified to deal with this problem.

In my area, for example, we still have a two-tier local authority system. The problem is in the city, where the air is worst, but my Labour city council does not have control over the levers of planning and transportation, which are in the hands of the Conservative-run Devon County Council. It is always difficult to get those two authorities to work together but, on a problem as challenging and expensive as this, they really need more support and strategic lead from the Government.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the communities that are most affected by poor air quality tend to be the most deprived communities, often living close to city centres? It may well be those councils that have suffered the greatest reductions in their spending capability, and we face a real danger of widening health inequalities, as well as those funding inequalities.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I completely agree. One of my frustrations is that some of the more radical measures, such as congestion charging or workplace carpark charging, have an impact on many people who drive into my city from the rural areas. The politics of a county authority championing those sorts of policy are really hard. I am pleased that progress is being made in Oxford between a Labour city council and a Conservative-run county council. That is a model to take forward, but it is very difficult in two-tier local authority areas.

It is clear to me and to the experts that the draft strategy as it stands will not ensure that we meet our legal requirements, let alone the stricter World Health Organisation air quality recommendations. As we say in our report, we badly need mandated clean air zones—I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government do not just introduce those—and we need practical and real help for individuals and businesses to move to cleaner forms of transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, rightly said, we need a massive modal shift in transport in our towns and cities. Most short journeys in towns and cities that are conducted by car could perfectly easily be done by most able-bodied people by bicycle or foot. As she said, the electric bicycle will revolutionise the way we move around towns and cities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on his excellent speech from the Dispatch Box; I am sure we will hear much more from him in the weeks and months ahead. Well done. Like many other Members, he raised very important issues.

I congratulate those Members who secured and took part in this debate, particularly the Chairs and Members of the four Select Committees, on their detailed and thoughtful joint report on this crucial issue. I recognise all the hard work that must have taken place to get four Select Committees to agree on a consistent position. That must be highly unusual, if not unprecedented. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) say “exactly” from a sedentary position. It is because it is an important issue and we recognise that. I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that the Government have an active programme to tackle this issue, and that there is plenty of oomph in the tank—[Interruption.] Yes, let’s go with the battery.

In January this year, showing our ambition, this Government published our 25-year environment plan, which set out our vision to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. As we leave the EU, we have committed to ensure that our environmental standards are not only maintained, but enhanced.

The very first goal that we set ourselves in the 25-year plan was clean air. Its importance is beyond question. Air pollution—whether from transport, domestic heating or agriculture—affects us all. It is the fourth biggest threat to public health in the UK, after cancer, obesity and heart disease, and that has been highlighted by many Members today, not least by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and this Government are absolutely committed to tackling it.

There has been progress. Air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010: sulphur dioxide emissions are down by 60%, fine particulate matter, which we all have concerns about, has been reduced by 11%, and emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides are at their lowest level since records began. However, there is no doubt that more needs to be done, and that message has come across loud and clear from the eloquent contributions we have heard in this debate. We are doing more, and we will continue to do so.

We have committed £3.5 billion in funding already for cleaner air and cleaner transport. That money includes almost £1.5 billion to support the uptake off ultra low emission vehicles—one of the most comprehensive programmes of support in the world. The UK is already acknowledged as a global leader in ultra low emission vehicles: one in eight battery electric cars sold in Europe in 2017 was made in the UK. We have said that we want every new car and van to be effectively zero emission by 2040 and that we will end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by that date.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Has the Minister not reflected on the views of both the joint report of the Select Committees, which called for that date to be brought forward, and of Lord Deben who this morning talked about the Government’s climate change commitments and called again for that date to be brought forward to 2030. Are the Government not listening to the views that are being expressed?

[David Rutley]

We are listening. We have seriously considered the points that have been made, and this is an ambitious target. It is very much ahead of what is going on in other parts of the world. There are only six other countries that are ahead of us in proposing those targets.

Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The phenomenon of idling engines—often, ironically, outside the very schools whose children we most want to protect from deteriorating air quality—does require action to be taken. I commend my hon. Friend for pointing out the leadership shown by Westminster, among many other councils, and I believe we need a wider application of the already existing powers that local authorities have to deal with this.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Our joint Select Committees report called for ambitious, co-ordinated cross-departmental action, yet there is virtually nothing in the Secretary of State’s new strategy to tackle the impact of road traffic. As the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has said, modal shift gets two paragraphs and active travel just three sentences. He has clearly rejected a ban on diesel and petrol cars before 2040. Can he point to a single measure or funding pot that he is announcing today that will better align urban planning, public transport and fiscal incentives, as our Committees recommended?

[Michael Gove]

It is important to realise that there was widespread recognition in the report produced by the hon. Lady and other Select Committee Chairs that road transport was simply one of the sources of air pollution. In this strategy, we are complementing what was already announced last year in our roadside NOx emissions strategy, with action on ports, air travel and trains, which is a signal of the determined efforts we are taking across the Government to deal with all the sources of air pollution.

The hon. Lady says that we should move faster than to get rid of internal combustion engines by 2040, but I have to say to her that no other major developed economy is taking that step. We need to take a balanced approach towards setting a firm deadline for moving away from conventional petrol and diesel engines, while also providing industry with the time to adjust.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is an extremely senior and cerebral Member of the House, keeps chuntering from a sedentary position about buried money—just in case colleagues had not heard what he was chuntering about. It would be good if he ceased chuntering.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

11. Improvements to air quality and action to tackle road transport pollution in this country have been driven by EU legislation and the enforcement mechanisms that underpin them. In September the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), was asked seven times by the Environmental Audit Committee whether the Government would retain EU air quality limits following exit from the EU, but she failed to give that commitment. Weeks later, why has she still not confirmed that EU air quality limits will be retained or improved, or explained how they will be enforced, which is essential to cutting premature deaths?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s desire to see clean air—nothing could be more important. We are doing absolutely everything we can, and we will continue to be committed. As the Prime Minister has said, we will be nationalising the acquis communautaire, so the EU legislation will become UK law. Just today, as the hon. Lady may be aware, we have announced our clean air zone consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend correctly says that soils are not just for short-term production; they are incredibly important stores of organic matter. There is a lot that we can do, and are doing, on precision farming and shelter belts. Rothamsted Research is also doing work on this issue, but I would be delighted to meet her and to make sure that this is central to our 25-year plan.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

More than half the population of England live within an hour of a national park, but many young people and their families struggle to get to them because rural bus services have been hit by devastating cuts and eye-watering fare rises. This is Catch the Bus week, so can the Secretary of State tell us what discussions she has had with the Transport Secretary about making our countryside accessible by public transport?

[Rory Stewart]

DEFRA takes that very seriously; we have a responsibility for rural affairs. We have very regular contact with the Department for Transport on this issue, and we supported it on developing community bus schemes. There is much more we can do. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, without communications connections, which buses are central to, rural areas will be disadvantaged.

Badger Cull

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. I shall come to the issue he has raised in a moment.

We would not have eradicated TB in human beings if we had relied on the vaccine alone, and indeed we will not eradicate it in cattle if we rely on the vaccine alone. A range of tools must be used if we are to be successful. There is the tuberculin skin test, there is biosecurity, there is the restriction of cattle movements, and now there is vaccination. There is also badger culling in specific, focused areas where the incidence of the disease is high. I do not underestimate the contribution that a badger vaccine could make to the control of TB in cattle, but it cannot be relied on to achieve it on its own.

The problem is that we have no scientific evidence that the Bacille de Calmette et Guérin, or BCG—which was developed in the 1920s, and has not been developed further—can prevent TB in cattle. We know that it is 70% effective in providing immunity in badgers, although of course it is not effective if the badgers are already infected, but no scientific evidence has been produced to demonstrate that it reduces infection in cattle in the field.

The pilot culls are planned to continue for four years. I believe that they should continue, and that lessons should be learnt from the report that we expect to be published in the next few weeks. We should bear it in mind that the randomised badger cull trials failed to meet the cull targets—which is the point I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for whom I have high regard—but the cull trials did result in a reduced incidence of TB in cattle herds, so there is some good news.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not share my concern that whatever we think about the issue of culling, there has to be huge concern about the failure to meet DEFRA’s own targets on humaneness? Surely we cannot continue to extend this culling regime while this inhumaneness continues?

[Roger Williams]

We await the report on that. We have had only leaked evidence and I have heard less critical interpretation of the statistics.

Weather Events (South West England)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bradshaw]

The hon. Gentleman is probably right. The recent weather comes after droughts and floods in previous years. I am also going to say a little about the importance of land management, because I do not think that the current approach is holistic, as it should be.

I believe that the Government will not commit the money that we need to invest in the south-west because of the Chancellor’s addiction to austerity—so short-sighted when it comes to capital investment. As has been said, current Treasury figures show that expenditure per head on transport in the wider south-west is well below that of all other English regions and the devolved Administrations. The Minister is a Cornwall MP, so I am sure he is aware that it is politically difficult for any south-west MP to vote for any more funds for HS2 until we have a firm commitment to address our rail problems first.

Will the Minister tell us the latest position on job losses at the Environment Agency? As he will know, EA staff have been working around the clock during the recent flooding. In our region, it is the second year in a row that Christmas and New Year were effectively cancelled for them. I was pleased that, in response to the call from my own party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Government announced a temporary freeze in the EA redundancy programme. However, local staff in Devon tell me that they have already lost so many people that they not only do not have the staff to work on the new flood defence schemes that are under way, but they cannot adequately maintain current flood defences. It would be wholly irresponsible of the Government to press ahead with job cuts given what we have been through this year and last, and so soon after the even bigger floods of 2007.

When I visited the Environment Agency, with the Leader of the Opposition, in Exeter the week before last, we were told that this year is already categorised as a one-in-250-year weather event. Last year, 2000 and 2007 were categorised as one-in-100-year weather events. We seem to be having one-in-100-year or one-in-250-year weather events every other year, on average. That brings me to my next questions, which are about climate change.

It is well known that the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who sadly is still not with us, is the Government’s leading climate change denier—a position that many of us consider untenable, given his responsibilities. Will the Minister assure us as he sums up the debate, as Floods Minister, that he accepts the science on climate change? Has he, unlike his boss, met his own Department’s adviser on the issue and has he spoken to the world’s leading experts on the issue, who are based in Exeter? It is easy for him to do so on his way to and from his constituency.

I also appeal to the Minister to do what he can to ensure that his boss and some of the others who I fear are in denial understand the importance of overall land management in water management and flood avoidance. It is not all about dredging. As many have pointed out, including his Conservative predecessor in the job as Floods Minister, dredging can often make things worse.

In that context, let me draw the Minister’s attention to a study by Exeter university, in collaboration with his Department and South West Water, on land management and water management on Exmoor. That four-year project, led by Professor Richard Brazier, essentially involves blocking up ditches and other drainage courses over a 2,000-hectare area of the moor to help to restore the peatland that predates the drainage that has happened for grazing during the past 200 years or so.

The preliminary results, published last week, are dramatic. Because of the restored land’s improved ability to retain and absorb water, the project has reduced by one third the volume of water leaving Exmoor and entering the River Exe. That is the equivalent of nearly 7,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. It has significantly reduced the volume of storm and therefore flood surges all along the Exe. It has had the added benefit of improving significantly the quality of the water arriving at South West Water’s treatment works, thereby reducing costs for that company and ultimately, it is hoped, for those of us who pay water rates. That work has very important lessons for land management across the uplands of south-west England and elsewhere, including, Professor Brazier believes, the high land surrounding the Somerset levels.

May I turn briefly to flood insurance? Many householders and businesses in Exeter have seen their flood insurance premiums rocket because of the combination of the cuts in investment in flood defences, the delay in the construction of upgraded flood defences for the city and the continuing failure of the Government to implement the long-awaited deal that they finally struck with the insurance industry on long-term insurance cover.

When the Leader of the Opposition was in Exeter, he met a couple whose insurance had rocketed in price from below £200 to nearly £800. He also met the chairman of Exeter chamber of commerce, who told him that businesses on Marsh Barton, one of the main industrial sites in my area and, as its name suggests, on a floodplain, had seen the excess on their flood insurance policies increase fivefold. They had also been told that they would have to move all their plant and equipment to the first floors of their buildings in the event of a flood warning, even though many of them are in single-storey buildings.

We were told that there is an ongoing disagreement between the Government and the insurance industry about whether to make it clear on everyone’s bills the premium that they are paying to help to cover people in higher-risk areas and that that is holding up the implementation of the deal. There is also the problem in relation to leaseholders, homes built since 2009 and small businesses, none of which are included in the current scheme. Is it not clear that, as it stands, Flood Re, as the scheme is called, is not adequate? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will deal with its inadequacies in the Water Bill?

In opposition, the Prime Minister famously rode huskies and said “Vote blue, go green.” People thought that he was serious about the environment and climate change, yet in recent years, intimidated by the growing band of climate change deniers in his party, he has seemed almost embarrassed to talk about the subject. He oversaw huge cuts in flood defences and the Environment Agency budgets, and work on implementing the recommendations of the Pitt report, commissioned after the major floods in 2007, stalled.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a passionate speech on behalf of the south-west region. Does he share my concern that preparing for and managing flood risk has been dropped as one of the priorities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that the Government’s national policy statement on roads and railways contains no reference to ensuring the resilience of our existing transport network?

[Mr Bradshaw]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What she describes fits into the overall picture, which is that the joined-up, strategic, collaborative, comprehensive approach adopted following the Pitt review after the serious floods of 2007 has been picked apart. The Cabinet Committee on Flooding that was set up under the previous Government was scrapped. It has now been reintroduced, we hear.

I do not know whether the Committee has sat; I do not know whether the Minister serves on it. However, we have lost three and a half years of effective policy on flood defence, flood management and managing flood risk, and I still do not detect the “joined-up-ness” that we need. When the Prime Minister comes to the Somerset levels and repeats what he heard from the last people he spoke to about dredging, has he actually looked at the evidence? Has he looked at all the advice that is coming, including again today, from organisations that know much more about flooding than anyone in this room does? They say that we need a much more holistic and joined-up approach—in the end, an approach that would save us as a country not only a great deal of heartbreak, but a great deal of money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. It is clear to me from the conversations I have had with Network Rail that we will be open for business for Easter. It has been a challenging time, but from everything I have seen—I see the concrete lorries filling that wonderful hole—I am absolutely sure that we will see a successful result.

As for the damage, I will focus on Dawlish, which is where the most significant impact was. It would be wrong not to mention some of the other things that have happened, and the erosion is a part of it. We have also had significant flooding in some of our smaller villages. I have 40 villages in my constituency. I will not name each of them and list the damage that occurred, but Ringmoor and Stokeinteignhead were significantly damaged. However, Dawlish is where the most significant impact of the storm was felt.

Some 56 families had to be evacuated late at night. The police had to knock in windows to get residents out. Countless businesses lost trade and, although that was partly due to sodden buildings, it was also because the train was not running. The cafés that usually got the business from the tourist footfall simply did not do business. The district and county councils were brilliant in all that they did, doing much more than might otherwise have been expected. Volunteers were fantastic. There was a lot of action during the night. Tea was available 24 hours a day, served by a wonderful lady, and the Network Rail team, in their orange jackets, have now become almost iconic in Dawlish. The local community love them to bits and see them as local heroes. They are still giving them cups of tea and pats on the back, and whatever else it takes to keep them going.

During the crisis, First Great Western finally got up to speed and put in place the coaches that were needed, but it is fair to say—I am sure the right hon. Member for Exeter knows this—that there were severe challenges going south from Exeter, and I heard tales of queues of 200 people struggling to find places on coaches.

We need to remember that the impact of everything that has happened was not only physical, but emotional and economic. For my constituency, the impact has been devastating. That coastal railway line has stood the test of time since Brunel built it, although it has breached before. There are some wonderful pictures of previous breaches when passengers got off the train, walked over the rocks and got on another train on the other side. I am not sure we could do that today, but the pictures are interesting.

The coastal railway is an economic lifeline. The loss to the region is—conservatively—£2 million a day. It is crucial that the line is up and running for Easter. As the right hon. Member for Exeter mentioned, the line is particularly crucial in my area, not only because it is an economic lifeline, but because it is a flood defence. It protects 951 properties in Dawlish, Dawlish Warren, Starcross and Cockwood. It is absolutely mission critical for me as the Member of Parliament and for the constituents I represent that the railway line is made better and more resilient, and that it is there for the long term.

We must look seriously at what can be done to support the railway line. I hope the Minister addresses that in his remarks. There is new technology that will allow a secondary wall to be put on the external front, with wave-breaking technologies that will reduce any damage. There is also the potential for a breakwater to be put further out. I believe that has been done in Sidmouth and Plymouth. I see no reason why it should not be considered in Dawlish. Indeed, from conversations I had with Network Rail last year, I understand that it was already under review. However, I thought 2019 was too late and simply not an adequate answer.

The Dawlish station footfall, believe it or not, is 480,564 people per year. That is the 2012 figure, the most recent I could find. Over the past 10 years, the footfall through Dawlish has risen by 81%. The footfall for Teignmouth is 566,528 individuals a year—again, that is the 2012 figure—and that has seen growth of 98%. If we add the footfall in Newton Abbot, the number is similar to that in Exeter St Davids or Plymouth, so this is not a small rural area. It is a significant part of the south-west, with a significant local economy, much of which is driven by tourism, and it is absolutely crucial that the Government support it.

The Government’s help has been very welcome. The resilience review, which I gather the Army will be undertaking in five weeks, will make a big difference. My question is this: if the Army can do it in five weeks, why has it historically taken Governments years? Can we not make the process faster and have a real assessment of what can be done, with some proper open discussion about what money is needed and what money can be spent? Although the Prime Minister has said money is no object in relation to flood damage, given the budget left by the previous Government, there is not a lot of spare cash. However, this is a critical area for spending, and we must future-proof the railway.

[Lilian Greenwood]

On the best way to tackle resilience at Dawlish, it might be concluded that a new line is necessary or that substantial work is needed to strengthen the Dawlish sea wall. Is the hon. Lady concerned that the money could come from already squeezed Network Rail budgets and other projects in the south-west, rather than being funded with new money from central Government?

[Anne Marie Morris]

First, I do not think there is any question in anybody’s mind that any additional railway line or loop would be instead of the existing line—it must always be as well as the existing line, not least because any new building of railway will take a significant length of time, and whether someone lives in Plymouth, Exeter, Newton Abbot or Dawlish, they need the line and they need it for the long term. It is not a question of an alternative, but an addition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The money is in place to make the urgent repairs, and that work is ongoing. We then need a scheme that we will fund. That could be smaller elements such as protection, or a bigger scheme if we want an alternative route. It is crucial to ensure that we get the repairs done and reopen the line to emphasise that the region is open for business.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important point on capital investment. As a Liberal Democrat, I am supportive of the coalition Government’s investment in infrastructure across a whole range of areas, including rail investment. I am a supporter of High Speed 2, as well as of the investment we are getting on the sleeper service in the south-west, among other things—I am always a fan of more investment of the south-west. The Government have invested huge amounts of capital in infrastructure. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who led on such matters as Chancellor going into the previous general election, set out what would have happened if a Labour Government had been re-elected. He spoke of 50% reductions in capital investment in the following years. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) said, we should not set against what this Government have done any idea that there would have been a huge increase in spending under Labour—there simply would not have been.

On maintenance, there is an idea that the efficiencies implemented by the Environment Agency might have affected the readiness of the defences. Those defences, in which we and all Governments have invested over many years, were in a condition that enabled them to defend those properties, but obviously we need to look at where further flood defences could provide protection on a cost-benefit basis so that we can get the best value for such investment. That is why I am pleased we could announce £344 million in the coming financial year in investment in new defences, as well as the £130 million announced to ensure that we get our existing defences back up to where they need to be following recent events.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to ask the Minister for some clarification on spending on repairs and resilience on the rail network in the south-west. Will the money for extra resilience at Dawlish, for example, come from existing budgets, or are we talking about new money from central Government?

Flooding

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pickles]

I vividly remember the visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency in 2007. There is rarely a time when I pass Tewkesbury that I do not think of that. He makes a very reasonable point. Historic Tewkesbury remained relatively dry, while the new bit has experienced a degree of flooding. Things have to be managed. Ten per cent of the country is a large area; London is a large area. We need to ensure that a degree of caution is exercised, but ultimately we have to ensure that our citizens are safe.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Mr Pickles]

If the hon. Ladies will bear with me, I want to talk about the challenge of climate change and then I will give way.

The same approach should apply to climate change. There are certainly man-made causes to the recent flooding and the main cause needs man-made management. Policies on dredging, development and even tree planting directly affect our landscape, but the weather is a factor in itself. The debate on climate is highly charged and polarised between sceptics and zealots, but the conclusions should not be. We know that Britain’s weather and climate is fickle. If Britain was to have a national symbol, it would undoubtedly be the umbrella. Any expectation that the Met Office could have predicted the amount and severity of that rain is simply unreasonable. It does not have a crystal ball, despite improvements in predictions.

The Met Office still does not definitively know whether climate change contributed to the recent weather patterns. This might be a short-term trend or a long-term one, but I would simply say this: the risk is there to our nation of a changing intensity in Britain’s weather. Given that risk, we should prepare. It would be irrational not to insure ourselves against that risk, and if there is a long-term trend, we should adapt to such change, as my noble Friend Lord Lawson has advocated.

“Just as science and technology has given us the evidence to measure the danger of climate change, so it can help us find safety from it.”

That seems a very reasonable statement and I commend it to the House. It is the view of a former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and I think he spoke very wisely.

[Lilian Greenwood]

If the Government really understand the potential impacts of climate change and extreme weather, why does their draft national policy statement on roads and rail contain no reference to ensuring that our existing transport infrastructure is resilient?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Lady is pointing to various documents and looking for omissions, but the facts speak for themselves, and the schemes that we are operating speak for themselves. We have been able to protect 1.3 million households, and although these have been perhaps the worst storms that we have faced for two and a half centuries, the number of properties affected has been relatively small.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

As many hon. Members have made clear in powerful speeches this afternoon, the floods have had a devastating impact on their communities. I am sure the whole House’s thoughts are with those who face personal loss and those who are now confronted with an uncertain wait and do not know when normality can return. Our thoughts are also with the workers who are straining to clear floodwater and repair our bridges, roads and railways. They have done an outstanding job under great pressure, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

I would like to start by saying a few words about the enormous damage that has been done over the past two months to the rail network. Great Western services have been severed south of Exeter since Brunel’s sea wall at Dawlish was washed away. Flooding has disrupted services in Wales. Crewe station was evacuated after suffering damage, and landslips have led to cancellations and delays in the south of England. At Bridgwater, in the Somerset levels, the line from Taunton to Bristol is still under several feet of water. Almost 300 Network Rail sites have been flooded.

Even when the water has cleared, further damage can follow, as embankments collapse. Many such earthworks date from the Victorian era and not enough research has been done on their stability. There have been 50 landslips in Kent alone over recent weeks. My constituents in Nottingham have also experienced delays, following a landslip between Chesterfield and Sheffield, and in the south-west, embankments have given way outside Exeter, compounding the damage caused at Dawlish.

Ministers cannot always prevent disruption, but they can put more pressure on train operators to provide timely and accurate information to passengers and open up first-class seating to alleviate overcrowding. The railways are a vital economic artery for the south-west. While the immediate challenge is to reconnect those rail services, we must also question whether the south-west’s rail infrastructure can withstand future pressures. The Transport Secretary has given Network Rail the task of producing a report on the future of the Dawlish link, considering “all the options”, and we will hold him to his pledge. The report is due by July. Can the Minister assure us that it will be made publicly available?

Sadly, such reassurances need to be put on the record because of the lack of transparency on the Government’s part, particularly in regard to the funding provided. Following the extreme weather in late 2012 and early 2013, the Government announced that they would fund the greater part of a Network Rail package of improvements in the Exeter area: they would provide £26 million, and Network Rail £5 million. However, that funding disappeared in the autumn statement. The Peninsula Rail Task Force group of local authorities wrote to the Transport Secretary on 27 January, stating that the funding’s

“omission from the Autumn Statement has…become a cause for real and sustained concern.”

On 12 February, the £31 million was re-announced as new funding, although yesterday the Secretary of State seemed to suggest to the Transport Committee that it had been the same money all along.

At best, Ministers have failed to communicate their intentions to local authorities, causing anxiety to those who have to plan locally for improvements in the south-west’s flood resilience; but if this is indeed new funding, as we were told just two weeks ago, they must explain what will be cut, or how more money will be made from passengers, to make up the balance.

It is already clear that Network Rail has been left with an extensive bill. The south-west’s local authorities estimate that last winter’s weather caused about £140 million worth of damage; this year’s storms have cost Network Rail about £170 million, and that figure may yet rise. As Network Rail must find 20% efficiency savings over the next five years, it will not be easy for it to absorb a further loss of nearly £200 million—and that does not include the cost of the additional resilience studies that the Government have ordered or further resilience measures in Dawlish.

The Minister dodged my question in Westminster Hall this morning, but I am going to give him another chance. First, can he assure the House that projects will not be cancelled or pushed back beyond 2019 as a result of the additional expenditure? Secondly, if Network Rail concludes that a new line is needed, or that substantial improvement works should be carried out on the Dawlish sea wall, will those works be funded by central Government, or will they be paid for out of Network Rail’s already pressured budget?

Of course, local authorities whose budgets have already been severely cut have had to commit emergency funding, much of which is not reclaimable under the Bellwin scheme. We have been told by the Prime Minister that “money is no object” when it comes to meeting the cost of the floods, but two weeks after he made that statement, we are little closer to knowing what he meant. For all the claims that investment in flood defences has increased during the current Parliament, that is correct only if inflation and local authority funding are ignored, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). We need a different approach, based on long-term planning and proper regard for the scientific evidence. That is why Labour has set out proposals for a national infrastructure commission, with strategic flood defences at the heart of its remit.

We are living with the reality of climate change, and the flooding over the past two months has brought the scale of that challenge into sharp focus; but, as part of the Prime Minister’s accommodation with the radical right of his party, he has allowed the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to become a voice for scepticism within the Government. Preparing for and managing flood risk has been dropped as one of DEFRA’s priorities, and, as I mentioned earlier, the Government’s draft national policy statement on roads and railways contains no reference to ensuring that our transport network is resilient. Budgets have been slashed, staff cuts planned, and scientific advice ignored. Progress reports on the Pitt Review’s recommendations have been scrapped, and exaggerated claims have been made in Parliament about spending on flood defences.

All that amounts to a poor record for a Prime Minister who once said that he wanted to lead the greenest Government ever. The Prime Minister may have changed his colours, but Britain still needs action to protect its transport networks and communities that are at risk of flooding. With clearer leadership and carefully planned, long-term investment, we can be in a much stronger position when Britain next faces floods on this scale.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State attended the 100th anniversary celebrations of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I have discussed the matter with Minster Lochhead. We both agree that we have a job to do, working closely with the industry, to promote strict traceability and production systems. I was interested to note that at the NFU conference last week in Birmingham that people really had their tails up because there is now an opportunity, with the public being so interested in the supply chain, to stress how good our industry is and how reliable our products are.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had on flood insurance.

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

The availability and affordability of insurance in flood-risk areas are important issues for the Government. Constructive negotiations continue with the insurance industry, at the highest levels of Government, on a range of approaches that could succeed the current statement of principles. The Government are on course to spend £2.3 billion on reducing the risk from flooding and coastal erosion and delivering better protection to 165,000 households over the four years to March 2015.

[Lilian Greenwood]

On 24 January I asked the Minister how much premiums will rise if he fails to reach agreement with the insurance industry. In response, he assured me that negotiations were at an advanced stage and that he would come to the House with details shortly. I understand that he does not actually have a seat at the negotiating table, but when does he expect to have news of a deal from his Cabinet Office and Treasury colleagues?

[Richard Benyon]

I think that there is a misconception in some parts of the House that the statement of principles represents some halcyon world in which our constituents living in high flood-risk areas are protected from exorbitant rises in premiums. That is not the case. What we want is affordability to be brought into the new system. I am involved in those conversations at the highest levels and want to assure the House that we are working as hard as we can to find a solution that can give comfort to everyone who is at risk of flooding, particularly those on low incomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I would love to be able to announce that a deal had been reached. As I have said before, I am afraid that we cannot negotiate these issues on the Floor of the House. They are sensitive—and market sensitive, too—and we want to ensure that when we come to the House we have a rock-solid case that is watertight and that will last for a long time. I know that this matter is a great concern to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and I am delighted that preparatory work has started on the flood scheme in Morpeth. The real comfort will not come, however, until his constituents have the assurance they need on insurance.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

How much does the Minister think premiums will rise by next year if he is not able to reach agreement with the insurance industry?

[Richard Benyon]

The real problem is that premiums have been rising pretty dramatically while the statement of principles has been in place. There is no affordability element to the statement of principles. We want to protect those on low incomes in flood-risk areas, and we think we have a method of doing that. We are at an advanced stage in negotiations; I will come to the House shortly, I hope, with details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I am really impressed with what is happening in Swindon and Wiltshire, and I want to use it as a model around the country. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T9. Will the Minister confirm that legislation to ban wild animals in circuses will be included in the next Queen’s Speech, or can we expect more delays on that important animal welfare issue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am in favour of free trade in all products, because opening up markets gives real opportunity to our own farmers who want to export in the other direction.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Despite new flood defences along the River Trent, which provided great reassurance during the recent floods, many of my constituents cannot obtain affordable insurance for their homes. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s earlier answer about the floods, but when will he be able to reassure those people that they will be able to secure insurance in the future?

[Mr Paterson]

I think I made it clear to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) that we want to get this right, but I am not going to place an artificial deadline on it. All of us, including the hon. Lady’s party, knew that the current arrangements would end in 2013. I repeat that we want to improve on those arrangements, and that it does not help when people make out, in the middle of negotiations, that the talks are foundering or in trouble. We are working very closely with the insurers, and we intend to secure a good deal for those whose houses are at risk of flooding.