Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

It is not only that. Animals are not an object or a possession; they are part of our family in many ways. Just think about those smuggled dogs being a member of your family—the dog that looks after your children and supports them growing up, or gives compassion to an older person. The idea that puppies have been smuggled in the numbers that just one charity reports—there are many charities in this space—says it all.

In the end, is it not the truth that the Government are running scared—not from the Opposition, although they should be, but from opposition from their own Back Benchers?

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim McMahon]

I will make some progress first. Regardless of their majority, the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister cannot govern if they cannot even get this Bill through the House. What is the point of a Government with a sizeable majority when in the end they admit that they might be in office, but they are very much out of power?

The problem with the Bill cannot be parliamentary time, which we hear about all the time in the Tea Room and the voting Lobby. We have frustration from Members, many of whom trek hundreds of miles to be here representing our constituents, with a Government who are so chaotic and unconfident about getting their business through that whole segments of the day are completely written off as Members are sent out of the House early after votes. Even yesterday, we were sent home hours early because the Government did not table any business for us to debate and discuss. The idea that the House is so overwhelmed by business that we just do not have the time to discuss this Bill is ridiculous. There is a will, there is time and there is no reason not to do that other than the fact that the Tories cannot even guarantee how their Members will vote. That is the real issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

As Members from across the House have said, we are a nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been a priority for this Conservative Administration and previous Conservative Governments going back to 2010. It is important to outline the success stories that the Conservative Government have delivered. We passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which enshrined into law sentient beings. Last month, we launched the new Animal Sentience Committee, which will advise this Government.

We introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty by passing the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increases the maximum custodial sentence from six months to five years. As others have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on that; he cannot speak in the debate because of his role within the Department, but we must congratulate him on his efforts in bringing forward that Bill. This year we legislated to make cat microchipping compulsory, which will help to unite lost pets with their owners. Last month we announced that we had extended the Ivory Act to cover five more endangered species: hippopotamuses, narwhals, killer whales, sperm whales and walruses.

We implemented a revised welfare at slaughter regime to introduce CCTV in all slaughterhouses. We banned traditional battery cages for laying hens and permitted beak trimming only via infrared technology. We have also banned third-party puppy and kitten sales through Lucy’s law, the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. I could go on—[Interruption.] And I will! We introduced offences for horse fly-grazing and abandonment, a key point that I am pleased the Government have addressed. We introduced new community order powers to address many dog-related issues and banned wild animals in travelling circuses. Again, I could go on: we also banned glue traps and gave police additional powers to tackle hare coursing.

This Government have committed from the Dispatch Box that they are determined to bring forward the provisions within the kept animals Bill through individual pieces of legislation—more nimble pieces, which can work through both Houses at speed. That commitment has been given.

It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the Opposition have decided to use this debate simply to politicise animal welfare. They have even sent out a joint letter signed by both shadow Ministers, not to us as individual MPs, but to the Conservative party headquarters. It is signed by all Labour parliamentary candidates—although, looking through the list, the Labour candidate going up against me in Keighley has not even bothered to sign it. I do not quite know what that says about his commitment to the Labour party or indeed to animal welfare. However, we need to raise our game on this issue, not politicise it. I am pleased that this Government have brought forward the measures they have, and I am pleased with the commitments they have made at the Dispatch Box today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a shame that Conservative Members continue to peddle the fake narrative that they have been told to push by DEFRA Ministers and the Whips—that my party is playing political games. The motion, if they have read it, clearly demonstrates the opposite. It is about bringing back the Government’s own legislation without amendment or embellishment. Let us remember that the Bill has been through Committee—through scrutiny—and passed Second Reading, and is the Government’s own legislation.

This is about just doing the right thing for our nation’s animal welfare. The country can judge for itself which is the true party of animal welfare, but I think we have all heard enough speeches from the Labour Benches to know. Although the Government and their compliant Back Benchers do their best to dance around the issues and deflect responsibility, we know the real reason they withdrew this Bill: leaked internal documents clearly show that they scrapped the kept animals Bill just to avoid “unnecessary tensions and campaigns” in their own party and on their own Benches. I think that we have seen that played out again today.

The truth is that the Tories are far more concerned with their own internal politics than the welfare of animals, and they have shown contempt for the electorate and a staggering inability to govern as a result. The kept animals Bill is not the first animal welfare legislation that this Tory Government have mishandled. As others have mentioned, they also bungled their “world-leading” Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, which has not come to pass—yet another casualty of a fractured party mired by infighting.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Alex Sobel]

I give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Robbie Moore]

The shadow Minister is making an excellent preprepared speech. I note that he and his fellow Opposition Members are agreeing to the aspirations of this Conservative Government, but what I have not heard throughout this Opposition day debate is one new policy idea from Labour; is he able to expand on any ideas they might bring forward?

[Alex Sobel]

The hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, is making the case for why he should vote for this motion: we are not bringing forward Labour policy; we are bringing forward Conservative policy—we are bringing forward a Conservative Bill that was meant to be delivered by a Conservative Government. Conservative Members are going to vote against their own policies. There have been lots of speeches today about our having consensus in this place on animal welfare issues, and we are proving that. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members will vote against the Labour motion, thereby disproving that that is the case in reality, rather than just in theory.

How many animals must have suffered from the delay we have had and the Conservatives’ abject political failure? By not legislating for the provisions of their own Bill and waiting two years to admit finally on 25 May —a month ago—that they were abandoning it, they have created an unknown number of animal victims. How many animals have suffered because of this political choice?

Conservative Members can continue to argue that the thin gruel of the Government’s legislation on animal welfare is a success, yet they still have not managed to ban fur and foie gras, as they promised the public in their manifesto four years ago and which has cross-party support. Just like that other flagship piece of animal welfare legislation, the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, this good piece of legislation has been cast aside—consigned to the scrapheap. I think we can all agree it shows how low animal welfare really is on the Government’s list of priorities.

The kept animals Bill was a solid piece of legislation, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). It covered a wide range of issues; although it is not the most newsworthy legislation, it is vitally important. The Conservatives promised to bring in some of the world’s highest and strongest protections for pets, livestock and kept wild animals.

In the Labour party, animal welfare is not a debate; it is a priority. I praise a number of colleagues who made important contributions to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) made excellent points about pet smuggling and is right that the pet passport scheme has loopholes and that this Bill would fix them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) was rightly horrified by the keeping of primates as pets, and this Bill is the solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—the esteemed chair of the all-party group on zoos and aquariums, which does great work in representing a global success story for the UK in conservation—rightly pointed out that the Bill would update the now woefully out of date zoo licensing standards. Since the Bill was dropped by the Government, there is no Government plan—if there is, I would like to hear it—on zoo licensing, which has been left in the wilderness.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) astutely pointed out that puppy smuggling is part of organised crime. The Government clearly do not take animal crime seriously either. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) has a world-leading zoo in her constituency; a number of other Members from the north-west also praised her zoo, and I will be visiting it shortly and am sure I will see her there. She rightly pointed out that licensing issues continue to plague zoos across the country. She also pointed out the trailblazing work by her council on trail hunting, which others have since adopted. The hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) also made excellent points about zoo licensing, and it is great that there is so much support for that. He also made powerful points for his constituents that the Government should keep their manifesto promises; he cited a couple of powerful examples from his constituency casework.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) highlighted the high number of issues just beginning with the letter b, and I was pleased to hear about the bees, badgers and other b animals. She talked about the cost of living crisis affecting pets, too, and the need for pet food banks. There are many other issues with our beloved pets that the Government need to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) reminded us of the animals abroad Bill that the Government are dropping as well, and made the wider point that a Government legislating by private Members’ Bills is not a Government leading but a Government following their Back Benchers.

Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I am pleased to be here again with an opportunity to discuss this important issue. Improving water quality, be it of our river systems or coastal environments, is incredibly important and all of us in this House care deeply about it. That is why I was pleased to vote for the Environment Act, which put in place key mechanisms, one of which obliges all water companies to monitor water quality and publish real-time data on storm overflows. We are nearly at a position where we will have 100% data collection.

The second mechanism is investment, with a requirement on all water companies to deliver up to £56 billion of capital investment over the next 25 years in improving our water quality. Thirdly, the Secretary of State can issue a direction on water companies to ensure that they enact their ability to clean up our rivers. The fourth mechanism is immediate investment, with direct investment of up to £7 billion in the next 25 years.

All those are great measures, but it is has to be noted that the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens actively voted against them. They voted against direct investment of £56 billion to clean up our rivers. All of us should not forget that during this debate. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have also brought out the plan for water, with a requirement actively to reinvest all fines on water companies into schemes to improve our environment. I am pleased that the Conservatives have brought that forward.

Ilkley has the River Wharfe, the first river to be awarded bathing water status in the UK. That application was generated by the Ilkley Clean River Group, which worked incredibly hard to get it over the line. I had many a conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the Secretary of State on that. What does it deliver? More involvement in active monitoring and Yorkshire Water is investing up to £13 million in infrastructure work in Ilkley. All those mechanisms will help to improve the River Wharfe in my constituency.

So I am pleased about the Environment Act and the measures we have brought forward, but I am incredibly disappointed that the Labour party is using this opportunity to proactively do something that all Conservative Members are doing already: we are bringing forward positive measures that are going to help clean up our river systems. It is disappointing that once again the Opposition are choosing to play party politics with something that is much more important to our constituents: cleaning up our river systems.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

As the hon. Gentleman identifies, these are devolved matters. I am sorry that the scheme does not apply to his constituents, but we have a lot of engagement with the devolved Administrations, some of which are going in a slightly different direction. In those conversations we all recognise that we have to go in a direction that improves our biodiversity and environment. We will continue that dialogue to help support our friends and colleagues in the devolved Administrations and their constituents.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I declare my interest, as my parents are farmers and I previously worked as a rural practice surveyor. I welcome the statement and congratulate DEFRA on listening and making changes. It is worth noting that Janet Hughes, who is working behind the scenes, has been getting huge credit for her work to interact with farmers. Landscape recovery projects are a great mechanism for fostering collaboration between different landowners in creating that public good that we need to see. Will the Minister expand on today’s announcement on the landscape recovery schemes, which will enable farmers to work together as bigger units to drive and deliver the public good that we all want to see?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the landscape recovery scheme, which will deliver huge benefits to various parts of the country. It is a competitive process, and 25 schemes are available to be awarded. It will enable landowners, farmers and non-governmental organisations to come together to increase the amount of land in one package and to deliver a public good by building networks of improvement, with a single person having an overarching view of a whole landscape to make sure that we have, say, buffer zones next to rivers. That is a new concept, and the pilots prove that it works. I look forward to many more schemes coming forward.

Waste Incineration: Permit Variation

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate, and it is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). They both gave excellent speeches on this really important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington has an active incinerator in his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough has one that is in development. I will talk about an incinerator that is not yet built, but which I certainly do not want to see built or to become operational. I note for the record that, although I am not involved, I have close family members who run and operate a plastic recycling business.

I will use the limited time available to talk specifically about waste incineration, touching on my concerns about how decisions on new incinerator applications are progressed, how environmental permits are awarded for waste incinerators and the future direction of waste incineration. The subject is of particular interest to me and many of my constituents and has been for many years because, going back as far as 2013, my constituents have constantly and consistently fought a battle to stop an incinerator from being built in Marley, on the outskirts of Keighley.

I will provide a bit of background. The Minister will be aware of the concerns that I raise, as I have raised them with not only her but her Department a few times before. The incinerator scheme was originally awarded planning consent by our local authority, Bradford Council, back in early 2017. The decision was made in spite of huge local opposition—opposition that has been fought for many years, and led by the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team, which is an excellent group. I give particular credit and extend my personal thanks to Simon Shimbles and Ian Hammond of the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team for working closely with me on this issue many times since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Keighley. Their passion, dedication and acute attention to detail has shone throughout all our discussions. As I have pointed out before, it is a campaign organisation that, over the last six years or so, has seen its following—and involvement from local residents—grow to over 6,000 people, which shows the strength of feeling on the issue. It has worked tirelessly for many years, and since forming it has represented the views of the many residents living in Riddlesden, East Morton, Long Lee, Thwaites Brow, Keighley and our wider community far better on this subject than our own local authority, Labour-run Bradford Council. It is disappointing to see not one Labour Back-Bench Member or, indeed, any Back-Bench Member from the Liberal Democrats taking part in this important debate.

It is infuriating that the green light has been granted for the Aire valley incinerator to be built and to operate. I will pick up on some of the huge concerns that I and many others have, and address some of the flawed decision-making processes and disastrous decisions that have been adopted throughout the planning application and environmental permit stages. This is an incinerator that is set to be built at the bottom of a valley, in close proximity to schools, residential care homes, playing fields, people’s homes and spaces where children grow up and play. Despite that and many other factors that I will get into, both the Environment Agency and Labour-run Bradford Council as the local planning authority have deemed the construction and operation of the incinerator to be suitable and fit for our environment.

I have looked back at Bradford Council’s report, which its assistant director of planning produced for a planning committee that met in February 2017. The report concluded with a recommendation to grant planning permission, and it makes worrying reading because it concludes there are no community safety implications. Bradford Council’s air quality officer registered no objection, which is ironic because the council has just implemented a tax on hard-working people through our clean air zone tax, which impacts on many of my constituents who travel in and out of Bradford and want to use its businesses. Yet on the incinerator, to which it gave the green light, it registered no objection to the air quality implications, and the Environment Agency registered no objection at the planning stage. It commented:

“We have established that there are no show stoppers or serious concerns relating to the location of the proposed development”,

despite its close proximity to many homes and being situated at the bottom of a valley, as I say, next to playing fields.

Bradford Council’s report goes on:

“The proposal enhances the quality of the environment, and promotes recycling.”

How on earth can burning waste be classed by Bradford Council as enhancing the quality of the environment when it is known that particulate matter such as sulphate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride and black carbon enter the atmosphere from such a process? I can only conclude that the council must be taking us in Keighley for fools. It goes on to say that an incinerator burning waste promotes recycling; that is ridiculous. My constituents deserve much better. Both Bradford Council’s planning decision and that of the Environment Agency in awarding the environmental permit have let all of us in Keighley and our wider area down. We have been let down by the process.

The potential impact on people’s health from the incineration process cannot be ignored. When the Environment Agency was doing a consultation on awarding the environmental permit, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I both submitted a 10-page objection to the permit being awarded, raising concerns about the inadequate and unfair consultation process. In my view, it was a complete sham. We had concerns about noise and odour pollution, and the fact that the incinerator is to be built at the bottom of a valley, with the resultant challenges of the topography and the implications that emissions can have on public health as a result of temperature or cloud inversions.

The incinerator, as I have said, is to be built at the bottom of a valley. Residents live on either side. Going up the hill, schools are located. Travel down the Aire valley on a damp day and the cloud hangs low. The incinerator at the bottom will impact on air quality, and that is what I am concerned about.

I also raised concerns about the modelling of the pollution data that the Environment Agency used, because it was unreliable. I will give some examples. Data was collected by the Environment Agency from the Bingley weather station, which is located 262 metres above sea level, whereas the proposed Aire valley incinerator is to be built at roughly 85 metres above sea level. That discrepancy in elevation means that the estimated dispersion of emissions from the incinerator is based on information from a weather station at a significantly raised position where wind speeds behave much differently from those experienced at the bottom of the Aire valley. We also raised concerns about the proposed monitoring of emissions and any enforcement action that is likely to follow. There are also issues regarding stack height. The incinerator is proposed to have a stack height or chimney height of only 60 metres, yet other comparable incinerators have stack heights far higher, meaning emissions are better dispersed.

The list goes on, but perhaps the most significant of my concerns was about the incinerator’s impact on human health and air quality. It is clear that the incineration of waste creates a number of emissions. There is much concern about the impact of waste incineration on air quality and human health. The concerns relate predominantly to particulate matter, which is mainly composed of materials such as sulphate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride and black carbon.

The Minister will be aware that back in 2018 and 2019, Public Health England funded a study to examine the emissions of particulate matter from incineration and their impact on environmental health. Although the study found that the emissions from particulate matter from waste incinerations were low and made only a small contribution to ambient background levels, a contribution was noted nonetheless. There are many variable and influencing factors, such as stack height—meaning the chimney height—the surrounding topography, the feedstock, the microclimate and so on. We cannot simply look at reports and apply them as a blanket approach to every incinerator that is considered. Applications must be looked at individually.

Residents are, like me, quite rightly concerned about the air-quality impact of incineration, because of not just the incinerator itself but the increased traffic flows bringing waste to the site, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned. Unbelievably, when I questioned the decision making for the environmental permit that the Environment Agency has awarded, it told me that it could consider emissions only from the incinerator itself, not the emissions from the increased traffic flows, because that was a planning matter that Bradford Council had already given the green light to. It considered the emission levels released from the traffic flows to be acceptable. That is ironic, given the fact that the council has just imposed another tax on hard-working people across the whole of the Bradford district through the clean air zone tax. It is an absolute disgrace. We find ourselves in this completely, utterly ironic situation in Keighley and across the wider Bradford district.

The situation raises a much bigger issue: the process of how permits are awarded in the first place. My concern is that a cohesive, full-picture review is not taken into account when looking at the impact on air quality of the whole incineration process, which includes the emissions from traffic flow. That is one of the main issues I would like the Minister to note, and I am sure she will. The message from Keighley is that we do not want the incinerator. We will not be the dumping ground for Bradford’s waste. It is infuriating that because Bradford Council awarded planning consent in the first place, the development is likely to go ahead. As I have said many, many times on this issue, local voices should be heard much more loudly and clearly in any decision-making process for this type of development.

I wish to touch briefly on the importance of driving a circular economy. A circular economy means prioritising, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and regarding waste as something that can be turned into a resource. This contrasts with the linear “take, make, consume, then dispose or incinerate” model, which assumes that resources are abundant, available and cheap to dispose of.

We have many mechanisms and tools available. Unlike incineration, landfill is already subject to a tax. The Government should look at the benefits of bringing in an incineration tax. It would work in a similar way, in that it would be calculated with reference to the tonnage of waste sent to incinerators. If we have a landfill tax and bring in an incineration tax, that will work as a fiscal disincentive to incineration and lead to more innovation in other practices, such as recycling and reuse. Of course, an incineration tax is not something new or radical, having already been adopted by other countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria.

As a country, we must move towards a more circular economy, where reusing and recycling are the norms of public life. We owe it to the next generation to ensure that our planet is left in a much better state than when we found it in.

Bathing Water Status: Rivers

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on securing this important debate. I know how passionate he is about securing bathing water status for parts of the River Nidd in Knaresborough and I thank him for allowing me to make a short contribution.

In December 2020, a stretch of water on the River Wharfe in Ilkley in my constituency was granted bathing water status—the first stretch of river in the UK to be awarded such a designation. I know how important that is, having heard my hon. Friend’s points about sewage getting into rivers. I put on record my thanks to the Ilkley Clean River Group, which did such a good job in getting our application off the ground in the first place and continuing with its efforts. I hope that my hon. Friend’s campaign is a success.

Why does this matter? Simply, we all care about improving water quality and ensuring that our rivers are clean, healthy and thriving environments. Of course, achieving bathing water status on rivers provides an additional mechanism to ensure that a river ecosystem is as healthy as it can be. The River Wharfe in Ilkley has had, and continues to have, problems with pollution being discharged due to inadequate sewage infrastructure. When it rains, Yorkshire Water’s sewage treatment works in the surrounding area often spill into the River Wharfe. Residents along Rivadale View will be familiar with that, as will residents downstream of the Ashlands sewage plant. Even more damaging are storm overflows, which are frankly inadequate to deal with the high percentage of rainfall we receive. My hon. Friend has already commented on our challenges with the combined sewer system.

Let us be clear: until now, no Government have had the willpower to tackle sewage discharge. I was pleased to vote for the Environment Act 2021, which will help tackle and put a stop to sewage discharge. I must say it was disappointing that the Opposition parties did not, like us, vote for that Act.

Of course, having secured bathing water designation, we are provided with an additional mechanism, which will help clean up our river system by putting additional pressure on water companies—in my case Yorkshire Water. Regular testing is now required. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that has resulted in the River Wharfe being classified as poor, but the data that is collected will put additional pressure on Yorkshire Water and other water companies to secure investment in infrastructure and additional apparatus to ensure that the stretches of water where bathing water designation is secured are clean.

Let me finish by making a couple of points about what I have learned from our experience. It is not good enough just to have a single monitoring point on a river; we must consider a stretch. I have concerns about the term “bathing water status”; I think “clean water status” would be much more apt, because that is what we are all trying to achieve, and there are some difficulties with rivers and it being safe to swim. In addition, the guidance from DEFRA needs to be updated to deal with rivers and not just coastal areas.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and wish him all success in his campaign on the River Nidd. If he has the success that we have had in Ilkley, that will put more pressure on the utility companies to clean up our rivers, which is what we all want to see.

Sewage Pollution

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I am afraid that the failure to address storm overflows goes back much further. This is a legacy of the Victorian infrastructure that we have in place, and no Government down the decades in the 20th century properly grasped it. Successive pricing reviews under the Labour Government prioritised price reductions over investments to tackle this challenge. The same was true of the coalition Government. This is the first Government ever to prioritise this issue.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Constituents of mine along Rivadale View in Ilkley—indeed all of Ilkley and I—are getting fed up with Yorkshire Water’s underground apparatus and infrastructure failing in Ilkley. We have one scenario where a manhole cover has burst nine times in the past 12 months. Every time it bursts, sewage flows into the River Wharfe. We have passed the landmark Environment Act 2021, which, dare I say it, the Opposition did not vote for. Does the Secretary of State agree that Yorkshire Water needs to get its act together and sort this out, so that my residents are not having to suffer the consequences of sewage getting into the River Wharfe from this manhole cover bursting time and again?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, thanks to the evidence that has been gathered as a result of the new monitoring that we required, we are now bringing investigations into around 2,200 sewage treatment works. I cannot comment on the specific manhole cover that my hon. Friend refers to, but I can reassure him that the Environment Agency is prioritising all of these sorts of challenges.

Fly-tipping and Illegal Dumping

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this important debate. We can see from the number of Members in attendance how significant this issue is across our constituencies. This debate is important for me because certain areas in my constituency are plagued by fly-tippers. As many have said, fly-tipping and illegal dumping can ruin the experience of residents and visitors.

The Worth valley in my constituency, one of the most beautiful parts of the country, is the place that inspired the Brontë sisters and is home to some of Yorkshire’s finest tourist attractions. Too often, when one drives through this rural landscape, bin bags, discarded objects and even hazardous material can be seen dumped and discarded at the side of the road.

Only in April this year, hundreds of dumped tyres were found on Nab Water Lane in Oxenhope in the middle of the Worth valley. In November last year, a large number of household waste items, such as mattresses, cots and bags of rubbish, were dumped in East Morton cemetery, near Riddlesden, where Captain Sir Tom Moore is buried. It is an absolute disgrace that individuals feel they can get away with that. In April 2021, 225 tyres were dumped on the top of Ilkley Moor. That illustrates that we are not talking about little bits of rubbish being dumped here and there. This is organised crime, which we must get on top of.

This is not just happening in the rural parts of my constituency. In the centre of Keighley, some of the back streets, particularly the back lane to Cavendish Street, are hard hit, with residents finding numerous bits of dumped rubbish. That causes huge amounts of havoc and distress for many people living and working in the area.

The figures stand out. Nationally, 1.13 million incidents of fly-tipping have been recognised over the past year. Within the Bradford district alone, last year there were 2,000 fly-tipping incidents, with 50 fly-tipping fixed penalty notices given out and five vehicles that had been involved in environmental crime seized. In Keighley itself, 2,500 fly-tipping incidents have been reported over the past two and a half years. Keighley Central ward had the highest number, with 771 recorded; it was closely followed by the Worth valley—one of the most rural parts of the constituency—which saw 522.

We have to get to grips with this problem and get on top of it. Funding is absolutely vital, but we also need a name-and-shame strategy. To hold these individuals to account, let us have the names of anyone who gets a fixed penalty notice branded across the constituency. We have had Travellers visit Ilkley and leave behind huge amounts of vegetation—green waste. They have clearly gone around the town, approached residents and asked how much they can pay to get rid of their green waste, and then they have left it on private and council property so that the taxpayer has to pay to get rid of it. This cannot continue.

We also need to be smarter about installing more CCTV cameras and using technology to investigate and explore the rubbish that has been dumped so that we can work back and hold those criminals to account, in order to get on top of this horrendous issue that blights us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

It is about building blocks and making sure that we have the proper ability to investigate whether waste carriers and brokers are suitable to hold a waste licence. That is part of what we are trying to do. I commend the MSP, Mr Fraser, for driving this forward among the Scottish Conservatives. It is really important to all our constituents.

I was pleased to see that Aylesbury Crown court recently sentenced a serial fly-tipper, who had dumped rubbish in multiple local authorities, to 21 months in prison and seized his van. That is important, because it shows what many Members present have asked for: a deterrent and a strong, firm approach.

The Government outlined how we intended to strengthen enforcement powers through the passing of the landmark Environment Act 2021. We have fulfilled that commitment. The Act ensures that agencies and authorities can work effectively to combat waste crime through better access to evidence and powers of entry. The Environment Agency was granted access to the national automatic number plate recognition service in 2021, giving it the ability to better trace those using vehicles for illegal waste activities.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden acknowledges, this issue is not something that my Department can tackle on its own. It is not enough for us to provide the tools; the tools must be used. It is also important that we work across Government, which is why I have spoken to Baroness Vere in the Department for Transport about National Highways. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is no longer present, asked for a similar approach with Network Rail. It is about us joining up. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) spoke about her council, which has joined up at multiple levels, including parishes and so on. We can get on top of this problem.

I agree with the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) that this is about education. We do fund education through WRAP, Keep Britain Tidy, Recycle Now and others. This year, I have secured funds to drive our education campaign work forward. I will be looking at how we can best target that and what we can do with it. I know many voluntary organisations already do phenomenal work and, although it is not a laughing matter, have tremendous names—the Rubbish Friends, the Wombles, and so on. They are encouraging young people, Scouts groups and many other parts of our community to get involved to clean up the areas that they love. It is really commendable.

I urge the councils of all Members present to feed back to us as much enforcement data as possible. My records show that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council has not issued any fixed penalty notices or brought forward any prosecutions since 2014-15. In total, 19 local authorities in England reported no action taken in 2021. Councils keep the proceeds of fixed penalty notices, so they can use those to step up enforcement efforts. There is something cyclical here. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) is no longer present, but neither Rossendale nor Hyndburn has, in fact, issued any FPNs. As I say, it is good to hear about the joint working, but I need councils to work with us so that we can do more.

[Robbie Moore]

Does the Minister agree that the Government should name and shame councils that are not issuing fixed penalty notices when concerns are being raised by their constituents? Does she also agree that the individuals who are fined and receive fixed penalty notices should be named and shamed in the public domain?

[Jo Churchill]

We are straying into sentencing and so on, which does not come under my Department. Much of what has been spoken about today involves me talking to colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and so on. However, I will take away those questions, because I think it is right that the fine should fit the crime. Those discussions are ongoing.

We are looking to improve the environmental quality of all our communities. We have more ambitious plans, such as introducing the deposit return scheme to ensure that billions more drink bottles and cans are safely returned and recycled, and to ensure that the recyclate coming from that is of a better quality, so that it can enter a circular economy. I fully agree that that is what we should be aiming for. As I say, we have spoken to National Highways to tackle the scourge of roadside litter, and to the Ministry of Justice to support the community payback schemes that have been so fantastic at cleaning up some of our communities. We also want to explore what more can be done on sentencing for more serious waste-related crimes.

As part of wider reforms, extended producer responsibility will move the cost of the disposal of packaging in street bins from local taxpayers and residents on to the producer. I am sure that that strikes us all as fairer. These measures will have an enormous impact on plastic and other litter that we see on our streets, in our and in our waterways. To support innovative local action, in 2012 we commissioned the Waste and Resources Action Programme to administer the fly-tipping intervention grant scheme on our behalf. That was the grant of £450,000, which many Members mentioned, to enable a number of councils to implement a range of measures to tackle fly-tipping. Projects being funded include a combination of artificial intelligence and APNR cameras in Buckingham, the trial of “No bags on the street” in Newham, CCTV enforcement in Durham, and directing offenders to a digital education tool. I am pleased to say that we are looking to extend that grant, and I will be giving more details. It has been very popular, and many councils wish they could have availed themselves of it.

We also recognise the importance of local residents being able to dispose of rubbish in a responsible, simple way. We are working with councils on legislative powers to bring in consistent collections to make the system easier. We are consulting on preventing charges for DIY waste because, as many Members have said, that is a problem that blights neighbourhoods. We are also seeking views on household waste recycling centres because, again, some behaviours have changed over the past two years with the covid pandemic. As we have seen, that has led to a rise in some of the behaviours that we want to drum down on.

Disposable Barbecues

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for securing this important debate. We seem to talk in this Chamber about many things on which we have common consensus; if it is not our attempts to tackle the unscrupulous housing developments of Harron Homes in our constituencies, it is matters such as this.

I want to touch on many issues relating to disposable barbecues, not least how they are made. They contain many materials that are not recyclable or easily disposed of. As the hon. Member said, they contain single-use plastics but also different bits of metal that, when left in situ, inevitably cause havoc to livestock, even before any attempt to dispose of them. Many cannot be recycled or composted, meaning they will inevitably end up in a landfill site.

The issue that I want to focus on is their effect on the environment, particularly in causing wildfires. We have experienced that in my constituency, particularly on Ilkley moor, time and again. Ilkley moor, Marsden moor and other moors across West Yorkshire are among the most beautiful places to be found across the UK. Unfortunately, like many other West Yorkshire moors, Ilkley moor has fallen foul of wildfires as a result of disposable barbecues being lit and left in situ by individuals who disappear home.

Only five days ago, West Yorkshire fire brigade had to attend an incident on Ilkley moor as a result of a disposable barbecue being left behind. In May 2021, the fire brigade attended an incident where individuals had left a barbecue alight before disappearing. On the Easter weekend of 2019, there was a much bigger fire on Ilkley moor. The challenge with Ilkley moor is that it butts right up to residential property. Ilkley itself goes right on to the moor, which causes a huge amount of concern and worry to many of my constituents.

The inevitable challenge of moorland fires is having to deal with a lot of dry vegetation. When that vegetation has not been managed, the fire spreads very quickly, especially through dry summer months, causing huge devastation not only to the moor but to flora, fauna and the wild habitat. Fire spreads dramatically, as we have seen on Ilkley moor, Marsden moor and Saddleworth moor; and, of course, people live in close proximity to many of these moors. A fire can take hold and pose a threat to human life as well as to wildlife. It takes a huge effort by local fire brigades to deal with wildfires that catch hold. I pay tribute to West Yorkshire fire brigade, which has done a fantastic job many times in dealing with these blazes.

This is a small product that can be purchased in many supermarkets and outlets, but it causes huge problems for many areas. I pay tribute to the supermarkets that have taken a lead, particularly Waitrose and Aldi, which have introduced a blanket ban on sales of disposable barbecues. I also recognise the work that has been done by West Yorkshire fire brigade, particularly Benjy Bush, the Bradford district commander. Along with local authorities, he has advocated the Be Moor Aware campaign, which the hon. Member for Halifax referred to. It is a great campaign creating great awareness at a local level of the damage that can be caused by small disposable barbecues.

A ban on the use of disposable barbecues on moors was introduced in the Bradford district in 2019. That is set to expire this summer, but the local authority is seeking to extend it. Members of the council’s regulatory and appeals committee have begun a public consultation, which I shall follow closely. I urge them to keep that ban in place.

I still think that we could go further at a national level on the challenges associated with disposable barbecues, because they create far more havoc than benefits. It is not just disposable barbecues; other products cause equal amounts of havoc. For example, I am absolutely behind the proposal to ban sky lanterns. When a sky lantern is set off, who knows where it will eventually land or drop. Sometimes they are still alight when they fall on moorlands and fields, causing huge challenges with regard to farm animals and livestock—they can even kill them. I have heard that if an animal eats lantern debris, it can puncture its internal organs, leading to a potentially life-threatening situation. Animals can also get splinters in their skin and get trapped in the metal, plastic and paper that make up a sky lantern.

At a national level, there is more work that the Government could do to explore the possibility of banning disposable barbecues and, most definitely, sky lanterns. That is something that I am definitely behind. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Halifax, they cause havoc to our moorland areas, to livestock, to ecology and potentially to people’s homes that abut the areas where these fires take place. I am pleased that we are having this debate and thank the hon. Member for Halifax for securing it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Hare Coursing Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) on his work on this Bill and on getting it off the ground and through this place. It is fantastic to see the widespread support for the Bill from not only Government Members but all parties.

It is important to note that there is a well-established connection between hare coursing and organised crime, with gangs using it for their financial gain. It involves a wide range of other criminal activities, including theft, trespass, criminal damage, violence and the intimidation of honest, hard-working farmers. There are reports of events at which thousands of pounds-worth of bets are placed on this practice, and the events are often streamed online on encrypted messaging sites.



Research from the Yorkshire Agricultural Society shows the alarming extent to which hare coursing still exists. I know the impact that hare coursing has on our farmers from my own experience—I use this opportunity to place it on record that, although I am not, my family are farmers in Lincolnshire—and through the Yorkshire Agricultural Society, which I have met many times to discuss the issue. It has informed me that far too often its members are unwilling to report hare coursing crimes to the police for fear of threat by those who undertake the crime. In fact, on more than one in four occasions, farmers often do not bother even to make the call to the policy to report hare coursing crimes, and only about 18% of police responses were deemed to be satisfactory. Farmers fear that the current legislation cannot result in a severe enough consequence to culprits of that practice, and that police are not empowered enough to act. That is why the Bill is absolutely necessary.

Some farms in Yorkshire are targeted by criminals for hare coursing. The same farms are often repeatedly targeted over a few years, with 82% of farmers targeted on at least three occasions since the start of 2020. Worryingly, research shows that 48% of those who have experienced hare coursing on farms are threatened or verbally abused, and in some instances farmers are physically attacked. Furthermore, 83% of hare coursing instances results in serious criminal damage to farms. That includes crop damage, which occurs all too often when people drive on farmers’ land, causing huge amounts of damage.

The Yorkshire Agricultural Society has informed me of reports of sheep being killed as well as livestock left to get on to the roads and highways. As a result, farmers are having to take preventative action out of their own pocket. One in five farmers have spent at least £5,000 on repairing criminal damage and taking action to prevent hare coursing, and 7% have spent more than £10,000 to do that. That is why the Bill is vital to tackle the issue. Farmers are fed up of having to deal with those issues time and time again. While hare coursing was made illegal, it is absolutely commonplace. Those caught hare coursing are typically prosecuted under the Game Act 1831, but the amount they are fined is often around the £400 mark. Sometimes it is as high as £1,000, but the amount that a farmer has to spend on preventative measures far exceeds this.

In short, measures suggested by farmers who have experienced the toughest consequences of hare coursing include giving the police and courts greater forfeiture powers over associated dogs and vehicles, for police to be able to recover kennelling costs for seized dogs and for far more practical legal powers that do not limit police to capturing criminals in the act before they can be arrested. The Bill goes a long way to helping with all those issues, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for bringing the Bill to the House.

Water Companies: Sewage Discharge

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.

I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, this really important debate; it is great to see so many Members in Westminster Hall for a debate on such a significant topic. Indeed, for me, cleaning up our river system by improving the water quality in our streams and rivers is incredibly important. In my constituency, we have the River Wharfe, which is the only river in the UK to have secured bathing water status so far.

I am very proud that, after decades of inaction, this Government are the ones who are doing something about this issue. Many people who signed this petition will have done so in advance of the Environment Bill securing Royal Assent last week. During discussions on this issue, many falsehoods have been put across by the media and—I have to say—by Opposition Members, who have used the many debates in recent weeks as an opportunity to capitalise on falsehoods in many arguments that have been put forward. I will use this debate as an opportunity to set the record straight.

Members in this place have never voted to allow water companies to pump sewage into rivers; what we have done is vote for a piece of legislation that will go to much greater lengths than we have seen before to clean up our rivers. With the Environment Bill securing Royal Assent last week, we have voted to put a duty directly on water companies to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewage management plans, setting out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage systems over the next 25 years. Of course, we have also voted for a power of direction for the Government to direct water companies in relation to their actions in these drainage and sewage management plans. The Government will also have the ability to use their power of direction if those plans are not good enough, which is a powerful tool.

We have also voted for the Government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows—something that we are all incredibly passionate about in this House, because too often we have seen sewage getting into the river system by storm overflows not working correctly. Now the Government have the ability to put more pressure on water companies.

We have also voted for a requirement for the Government to produce a report setting out the actions that should be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, and the costs and benefits of those actions. Both publications are required before 1 September next year. We have also voted for a new duty to be placed on water companies and the Environment Agency to publish data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis. Furthermore, we have voted for a new duty on water companies to publish real-time information on storm overflows. This will mean that it is absolutely clear how often storm overflows are being used, which will aid enforcement, because—I emphasise this—in my view the Environment Agency has not been strong enough in holding water companies to account; and yet we have voted for an Environment Bill that will do that. In addition, we have voted for a new duty to be placed directly on water companies to monitor the water quality upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works.

In July this year, the Government set out, for the first time ever, their expectation that Ofwat, the regulator in charge of monitoring both the water companies and the Environment Agency, should incentivise water companies to invest significantly to reduce the use of storm overflows.

I was proud to serve on the Environment Bill Committee, and I was delighted to see the Bill become law, and it is great to see that so many people across the country are so passionate about this issue. Cleaning up rivers is vital to us all, but it was deeply disappointing to see Opposition Members not vote for any of the mechanisms or measures that I have outlined in my speech. The Opposition make a lot of noise on this topic, but the Government act and, thanks to the Environment Act 2021, we may finally begin to stop sewage discharge getting into our rivers.