Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I would like to speak to amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name. Amendment 2 would further strengthen the Bill by making it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to report discharge from emergency overflows. Amendment 3 would prohibit such discharge in river areas such as the Thames that are used for aquatic sports.

I have the privilege of representing the towns and villages of Beaconsfield, Marlow, Bourne End and the south Bucks villages. Unfortunately, we are served by Thames Water, and we have some of the highest levels of fines in the country. We are blessed with a beautiful waterway setting throughout my constituency, including the River Thames. Our area is rich in watersport clubs—the Marlow rowing club, the Marlow canoe club and the Upper Thames sailing club to name but three. Young people from high schools and grammar schools use the Thames for their water sports as well.

Amendment 3 would give water used for aquatic sports the same protection as that used for bathing. It would establish clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives where they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the water in which people practise aquatic sports, particularly rowing. That is particularly true of Thames Water and of the Thames. I appreciate the cross-party support in Committee on these amendments.

Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but storm overflow discharge into our rivers has adversely affected the health of participants, creating an ongoing health risk to rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs along the Thames and across the country. Many clubs, particularly in places such as Marlow, take their duty of care very seriously, and are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their members.

Amendment 3 would ensure that water used for aquatic sports was put on the same statutory footing as bathing water. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use, and to protect our young people for the future. The amendments set out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge an emergency overflow within a 1-mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The amendment would bring much-needed support to our vital aquatic sports.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, have held a number of meetings with local stakeholders and the Canal & River Trust about these issues, which affect the River Colne, which crosses our respective constituencies. Does she share my appreciation of the measures introduced by the last Government, which ensure effective monitoring? Will she join me in thanking Conservative-led Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hillingdon councils for their work to ensure that watersports users have access to good quality, clean facilities?

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point—the previous Government put in place monitoring for all waterways so that we can hold water companies to account. He mentioned the cross-border and cross-party efforts, but mainly those of the Conservative councils that worked together to hold Thames Water and other water companies to account.

I was surprised that the Government did not readily accept amendment 3, as it is not party political. It is about necessary support for our vital aquatic sports clubs, and would further strengthen the protection of waterways used for aquatic sports across the country. That would include the Thames and other rivers across England, many in areas where young people access waterways and where there is storm overflow. I urge the Government to accept these reasonable and important amendments to strengthen the Bill.

Environmental Protection

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point—I hope the Government are listening. That measure would not cost the economy anything, unlike this measure, which, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, will cost the economy. In fact, it will represent a £288 million net cost imposed on business every year, which is a £2.7 billion indirect cost over the 10-year appraisal period. It will be another unsustainable cost heaped on business, and an unwelcome addition to the growing headwinds on enterprise that this Government have created.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this measure will create not only headwinds for business, but significant headwinds for the local authorities that use the recyclable and resaleable material from doorstep recycling to subsidise the cost of expanding recycling services to all our residents? By extracting that valuable material from doorstep recycling, we risk pushing up the council tax needed to subsidise recycling services for all.

[Andrew Griffith]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. At its heart, it is a failure to identify the real harm that would justify the imposition of real costs on business at this enormously difficult time.

The scheme will also have an impact on consumers, because it is ultimately consumers who will bear the burden. It is a highly regressive cost burden that will disproportionately hit those on the lowest income. Research by the Association of Convenience Stores found that a disproportionate amount of people with long-term disabilities or aged over 65 supported the existing model of household collections, which is broadly working well, instead of the deposit return scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I am delighted to work with the hon. Gentleman. We have a track record of working with our DUP friends to solve the challenges that we face. That conversation can continue, and I look forward to working with him to continue to solve those challenges.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to help reverse biodiversity loss.

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

This Government have created a whole framework for restoring nature through our legally binding Environment Act 2021 targets, which include our world-leading commitment to halt the decline of species by 2030. We are accelerating action towards that through our environmental improvement plan. It is a shame I was not asked about this by the shadow Minister, but we have restored an area of wildlife habitats the size of Dorset, we have a network of marine protected areas, 5 million trees were planted last year, we have 55-plus landscape—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It was the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) who asked the question. Let’s not have a personal battle across the Chamber.

[David Simmonds]

Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is home to many incredibly important sites for biodiversity, as are many of our London suburbs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new Riverside park delivered by Harrow council in partnership with the Hatch End Association is a good example of projects that support biodiversity in our suburbs?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his local area. He is absolutely right; we are working with a range of local partners and people to put nature at the heart of what we do. I cannot commend Harrow council and the Hatch End Association enough for their work—they are putting in an apple orchard, wetlands and wildflower meadows, which are a superb addition to his already beautiful constituency.

Open Season for Woodcock

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. It is important for me to start with some constituency context. I represent a constituency in north-west London, which is probably best known for being a suburban area. However, we have more than 80 farms. We have a number of important habitats, in particular for bird life, in Mad Bess woods and Ruislip woods. We have a significant number of members of both the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the RSPB. We are also home to the well-known Holland & Holland shooting ground, which is used regularly by people who enjoy clay pigeon shooting and who perhaps go on to practise shooting birds.

I have had the opportunity to enjoy both the hospitality of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, and I have read the helpful and regular briefings that have come from the RSPB and other interested organisations over the years. It seems that this is an important debate that goes to the heart of many of the issues that Parliament, and us as Members of Parliament, need to consider. We are looking at not just the issues faced by the woodcock population in the United Kingdom, but the many other issues that affect the relationship between humans and animals in so many different ways.

I was a member of the RSPB’s Young Ornithologist Club many years ago. I want to place on the record my thanks in particular to the noble Lord Randall, who has a huge interest in bird life and has been an influence on my thinking on the matter. When we look at the various briefings that Members of Parliament have received on the issue, and at the views set out in the petition itself, it seems there are a number of issues we need to consider.

It is clear that climate change is having a significant impact on the breeding habitats of wild birds around the world, especially migratory species. We need to consider what responsibilities our Government have. We need to consider not just what we can do here in the United Kingdom, but what influence we can bring to bear in international forums to try to secure and improve the provision of those habitats, so that both migratory birds and birds domestic to the United Kingdom can thrive.

I was very struck by the briefing from the Countryside Alliance, which set out a great deal of the history, much of which has already been mentioned by other Members. It highlighted that the habitats that are so important for our woodcock population in the United Kingdom largely derive from environments that were created specifically, over the years, by those wishing to create an environment suitable for pheasant shooting.

That has been a consistent issue in the debates relating to any proposed restrictions on the shooting of animals in the United Kingdom. Personally, I have never shot a living creature for fun, but I am quite happy to eat game that has been shot. However, a consistent theme that has arisen through all those debates is that there is a balance between those who manage environments that are crucial for species—but are doing so because of farming, or, in this case, shooting for pleasure—and the need to restrict behaviour that goes against the law or has a long-term negative impact on the wellbeing of those species.

What I found striking in that Countryside Alliance briefing was the evidence that the shooting of animals—with the income derived from that, and the management of those habitats as a result—has been of long-term benefit to the species that we are talking about today, and those that we have debated in previous discussions, in response to previous petitions and wider-spread public concern. So, while I completely understand the views of a good many of my constituents, who have been most persuaded by the views of the RSPB, it seems that we need, at a governmental level, to balance that with the overall environmental and wildlife impact that any further restrictions will introduce.

As a consequence, it seems to me that, when we do balance those two things—I very much agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the evidence so far shows that the voluntary actions that have been undertaken have been beneficial—that is an appropriate first step for those of us who have concerns about ensuring that the issue is addressed in the long term.

This is a matter that Government clearly need to keep an eye on. However, while the Government might respond with further regulation, some of which may well be appropriate, the work done with different organisations on moving from lead to steel shot shows how co-operation can produce a much better outcome in animal and environmental welfare than the alternative of seeking regulation that perhaps does not fully consider the impact, particularly on the incomes that support that wildlife and habitat management. We must therefore maintain that sense of co-operation.

That being the case, I am not convinced by the evidence that has been presented that further regulation is justified at this time, nor am I convinced that it would be beneficial for the animal species—woodcock and other creatures—that are part of this overall both economic and wildlife ecosystem. Therefore, I very much agree that, as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined, we should continue to monitor this, but that the status quo represents an appropriate balance between the interests of birds, of the economy, and of people who wish to enjoy shooting as part of their day-to-day lives in our countryside.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

I am very much looking forward to visiting next Monday, and I reassure the hon. Member that while there is no silver bullet, it is important that we use everything we have available. The innovation that is coming in vertical farms, in greenhouses and so on gives us the opportunity to produce more food in the UK to feed ourselves.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

T5. I recently joined my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on a visit to the Colne Valley regional park, which covers a number of Members’ constituencies. It is an important haven for agriculture, aquaculture and leisure. Will the Government support our campaign to improve the protections for this vital green space on the edge of London?

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

Our landscape review highlighted that areas of outstanding natural beauty are often just as important as national parks to their local communities, as my hon. Friend is demonstrating. We will be working with the National Association for AONBs to better reflect AONBs’ significance through their name and their purposes, and we have allocated additional funding to support that this year. In terms of new AONBs, we are always happy to consider applications from interested parties.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords]

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that the Minister agrees with it, and I know that what we have tonight is a commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland can retain its standards, and that the deals with Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere will not have an adverse impact on the great sector we have in Northern Ireland and indeed in the whole UK. For us in Northern Ireland it is so important to have these standards in place, because we export 80% of our product.

I have one more point to make, and I make it as an animal lover. It relates to the protection of our pets and animals, which is a passion of mine. Since I was a wee boy in Ballywalter, which was not yesterday but back in the 1960s, I have always had a dog. After I met my wife, we always seemed to have a cat. My mailbag has been replicated throughout the whole constituency of Strangford, and again I seek some reassurance that we are in the last stages of getting this right. We are making vast steps in the right direction, but there is a balance between animal welfare and our obligations to the farming community. I declare an interest, as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which is the sister body of the National Farmers Union here on the mainland. This delicate balance must be kept, even in these last stages of amending and pushing through this legislation. Again, I am pleased to work with and support the Government on what they are bringing forward. Others have also made magnificent contributions to help get the legislation to where we want it to be.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We heard again, in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), that ours is a nation of animal-lovers, and that view has been reflected in contributions from Members on both sides of the House tonight. I have considerable sympathy with the observation made by many—particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—that if we are to remain a nation which fulfils that ambition, we must update our legislation from time to time. The UK is a country known throughout the world for what is often a very good process for identifying effective and proportionate regulation. That is reflected in the Bill, which is why I support it so strongly.

My constituency is unashamedly suburban in character. Given that past debates of this kind have been characterised as pitting town against country, it is enormously helpful for me to be here as the representative of a constituency where there are more than 80 farms and where fishing and fishing-associated businesses are very much present, but which also contains a significant number of members of animal welfare and, indeed, animal rights organisations. Throughout the Bill’s progress, I have been struck by the messages that have emerged and have shown how strongly people feel about the need for us to ensure that the update in the Bill is turned into practical reality. We sometimes have lengthy debates in the House and pass laws that appear to be stringent, but then fail to ensure that they are reflected in the experience of the people or, as in this context, the animals that they are designed to protect.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), although like many others I am not sure whether this Bill is the right place for his new clause, because in my constituency the River Colne has been hugely affected by sewage discharges. That has in turn affected fishing lakes and businesses involved in, for instance, water sports. We need to ensure that the measures outlined in the House during the passage of the Environment Act 2021 find their way into rigorous enforcement so that our constituents see cleaner, safer water, both for livestock and for human use, as part of their day-to-day lives.

I am a greater fan of the EU lawmaking process than, perhaps, many other Members. My experience has been mainly on the education side, but I think that ensuring that every stakeholder has the opportunity to contribute so we can ensure that the laws that emerge from their contribution reflect the widest possible range of concerns and are as effective as possible is a very worthwhile process. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) expressed concerns in this regard. In the spirit of trying to create legislation that constitutes an effective compromise and will make the difference to animal welfare that we want to see, I wholly endorse amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I hope that the Government will adopt it enthusiastically tonight.

Both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke of the need to ensure that we make a real difference. Whether we are talking about dogs or horses, animals kept as pets, animals that are part of our food industry, animals in our farms, animals in our rivers or animals that may be bred for sport, we must not just refer sentimentally to the highest possible standards, but ensure that our laws are in step with those in other countries, especially when it comes to trade deals. The food businesses in my constituency need to see high standards in the United Kingdom that reflect the high standards they expect to find in the markets with which we trade, and we need to ensure that those markets can trade freely with us on the basis of a high degree of parity.

[Sir Roger Gale]

My hon. Friend has been extremely generous in his comments about my own remarks. The briefing from the Countryside Alliance on amendment 2 indicates that this would reintroduce the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which was designed to protect bullfighting, and by implication would also protect foxhunting.

[David Simmonds]

That is no doubt a valid concern in the context of the Lisbon treaty, but when it comes to protecting events that are part of our heritage, those events need to be already taking place and legal in the country to which the rules apply.

An element that was designed to protect bullfighting in Spain, which has never been present in the United Kingdom, would not fall to be protected within that legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made some extremely clear and effective remarks. He made a valid point about the need to ensure that in the composition of any committee, we exclude not those with connections to interest groups but those who have expressed a view that would prejudge their position on a matter where they were required to be independent. That is an essential consideration. We make that same requirement for those who sit on juries or deal with court cases. For example, we require magistrates to declare any reason for excluding themselves from sitting in judgment on a case. The same applies to local authority councillors dealing with a planning application when they have a direct stake in the process. My hon. Friend has raised a valid point there, and in the light of other comments from across the House, there is clearly an opportunity to develop that a little further to take into account the widest possible audience of stakeholders. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet about the Countryside Alliance was also valid, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has taken that on board.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, representing the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, was asked was asked—

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

What recent estimate that body has made of the total cost of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

The Sponsor Body, supported by the Delivery Authority, is currently developing the detailed plan that will for the first time give an accurate sense of the costs and timescales and the full detail of the work needed for restoration and renewal. It will be put before both Houses for a decision before works commence. Securing best value for money is fundamental.

[David Simmonds [V]]

Given that the House has debated the subject numerous times, supported the Joint Committee’s 2016 proposal and passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, does my right hon. Friend agree that continually re-examining the scope and cost of the project increases the risk that we are not making our national Parliament fit for purpose and runs the risk of us having our own Notre-Dame moment with our beautiful and historic building?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the terrible fire at Notre-Dame, which serves as a reminder to us all of the risk to our great heritage assets. He is also right that putting off works tends to increase costs eventually, so I agree entirely about the time sensitivity of action and thank him for his timely reminder.

Grouse Shooting

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

For the record, I declare my membership of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have never personally been grouse shooting.

The constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has no grouse moors, but it is home to many people who have an interest in animal welfare and to a business that supports residents who enjoy shooting as a recreation, albeit with no live animals involved locally. As a consequence, I have had the opportunity hear from constituents on both sides of the debate today.

Humans have shaped our environment enormously over many centuries. As a consequence, all of us living today have a responsibility to protect and enhance our environment whether or not we approve of what previous generations did or of what future generations might have planned for it. Whether our moorlands or many of our fishing rivers, our natural environment has been shaped by human activity over generations. The biodiversity around us today is a result of those actions.

One of the issues cited most often is that of heather burning. That habitat management is required if we want the habitat to continue to prosper. There are clearly two major benefits from the burning. First, it promotes the new growth of heather and grass, which supports a wide range of wildlife in addition to grouse, including curlew, lapwing and golden plover, as well as deer and hares.

Even more important from a human perspective is the prevention of wildfires, as a number of Members have mentioned. Back in 2003, for example, a wildfire on the National Trust’s Bleaklow destroyed more than 2,000 acres of rare habitat and all the heather on the neighbouring 2,500-acre moor. The sad reality is that the CO₂ levels—a climate change issue—being released from wildfires has increased dramatically in the last five years. If we want to prevent and reduce those emissions, controlled firebreaks are a necessary part of our toolkit. The practice has many different names depending on where we are in the country, but the idea behind prescribed burning is that it is a quick burn that removes the canopy and does not affect the underlying peat or soil layer that is so important to the biodiversity of our environment.

The other theme running through the debate is our feelings about animal welfare-related issues and the distaste that many people feel about the idea of killing live creatures for fun. Although I share that sentiment, I also recognise that in the UK and throughout the world, different forms of hunting are not just an essential part of good husbandry of nature; they also underpin the funding that enables conservation and biodiversity efforts to proceed, both in the United Kingdom and across the world. Where we humans have created an ecosystem, we have a responsibility to manage it. Those who are proposing bans on the actions that they personally dislike need also to consider who will undertake and pay for the husbandry of those animal populations, so that familiar problems such as parasite infections and out-of-control predation do not simply replace one unpleasant fate with another.

Put bluntly, the ecosystem that we have created requires the management of animal numbers. In my view, it is much better to do that in a way that supports the economy of that ecosystem so that animals killed with a purpose are being eaten, contributing to the conservation and welfare of that animal population, rather than abdicating our responsibilities to the detriment of biodiversity and animal welfare at home and aboard.

To conclude, we need to consider the net effect of our decisions on our environment. It seems clear to me that the proposed ban is likely to produce a net disadvantage to our environment and our biodiversity, and must therefore be opposed.

Environment Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The world faces a catastrophic climate change crisis, yet this Bill falls very short, particularly at a time when we are the host of COP26 and should basically be taking on the leadership of the entire world. After all, global emissions are up by 60% since the Kyoto conference in 1990, while global temperatures are up by 1.2° C on the 1850 base rate and will hit the 1.5° level by 2030 on the current forecast, which will mean loss of land and major problems of migration, food loss and so on. Meanwhile, some 7 million people are dying every year from air pollution caused by fossil fuel extraction and use. I am therefore very pleased that new clause 29 attempts to link human health with environmental health. After all, on the latest figures, 64,000 people a year die from air pollution at a cost of £20 billion to our economy.

Of course, we know that air pollution was registered as the cause of death in the tragic case of Ella Kissi-Debrah. In the prevention of death report that followed, the coroner recommended that we should enforce in law the World Health Organisation air pollution limits. Following a meeting I had with the Environment Secretary and Ella’s mother, Rosamund, the Environment Secretary said that he would look again at that, and I hope he will when the Bill comes back from the Lords.

We know that air pollution is worse in poorer and more diverse communities, and according to the Max Planck Society, it increases the risk and level of death from coronavirus by around 12%. Other studies have been done by, for example, Harvard, showing that link. Dominic Cummings has just reminded us that coronavirus is airborne and that more emphasis needs to be put on that, but we also need to place more emphasis on air pollution. We know that the infection rate, as well as the death rate, is higher with air pollution. We therefore need legally binding WHO limits.

Let me turn to fracking. Methane emissions are 80 times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming. Given that and the fact that we know from satellite photography that fracking is responsible for 5% fugitive emissions—in other words, 5% of the methane is leaked—fracking is worse than coal for climate change and should simply be banned.

We need more trees, not just to absorb but to store carbon by including them in infrastructure and construction instead of concrete. If concrete were a country, it would be the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. I am glad that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said, Wales is taking a lead on this. In Wales, we have appointed a Minister for Climate Change, Julie James, who also represents Swansea West. She will push forward plans for a national forest and using wood in building. In contrast, in the UK, most of the hardwood is burned, causing not just climate change but harmful pollution. Hardwood should be pulped and put into insulation in construction instead.

Brexit means that we have more food miles. We need an initiative in COP26 to put carbon pricing into trade. China, for example, now generates 28% of global carbon emissions, with more emissions per head than Britain. We therefore need a joined-up approach, led by the Bill, that includes trade, transport, health, local government, planning and housing, not just a DEFRA-led effort, which will make little difference to the massive problems we face.

In summary, we need much more, much sooner from all our Departments. We need to improve the Bill dramatically to make a real difference and take global leadership.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a serving local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I will reference during my contribution.

There are many things to be welcomed in the Bill. The first, which is particularly important to my constituents, is that we will see some improvement in air quality as a result of the measures in it. It is clear that, in many respects, legislation is the start, not the finish of a process. Different Departments will issue a great deal of guidance to local authorities and other bodies to set out the mechanics of how the powers will be used and improvements brought about.

On air quality, I particularly highlight the need to ensure that local authorities and any others who are charged with responsibility for implementing the measures, achieving the targets and delivering the plans have meaningful powers that enable them to tackle sources of air pollution. In the context of London, where my constituency is—the capital, which has busy and congested roads—we need to ensure that local authorities have effective powers at their disposal to tackle issues such as vehicle idling, which contributes so much to air pollution, especially near schools, hospitals and other places where vulnerable people are placed at risk.

Let me move on to plastics. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who has been very active in bringing issues around plastics to the Government’s attention throughout the debates on the Bill. It is particularly important that local authorities ensure that in the provisions for producer responsibility, sufficient funding finds its way to those who will then be processing the plastic for recycling. Producers in the UK pay very little by comparison with those in most other developed countries in Europe towards the cost of recycling their products, and therefore that cost is heavily subsidised, if not entirely met in many places, by council tax payers. So we should ask those who are making these products that are then polluting our environment to ensure that they are providing the facilities and resources required to make that recycling happen in reality.

On the wider impact on recycling systems, a number of Members welcomed consistency around local authority recycling practices. We need to recognise that the sale of the recyclable elements of household waste already makes a significant contribution to the cost of household waste collections; it affects all our constituents, although there are different systems in use around the country. We need to ensure that programmes such as deposit return schemes do not hit council tax payers by removing so much of the recyclable material from household waste collections that a significant increase in council tax is needed to subsidise that difference. We need to make sure that when that guidance is issued to local authorities it reflects the discharge of their responsibilities on the ground.

I very much support the point made by a number of Members that we need to look at the whole picture for all kinds of goods and services so that we recognise the wider environmental impact, including the impact that might happen elsewhere. We are simply kidding ourselves and our constituents if we are offshoring pollution rather than dealing with it directly by ensuring that what we do in our behaviour and the way we deliver services is reducing the environmental impact.

I finally want to touch on a couple of issues that impact in particular on the natural environment and biodiversity. I very much welcome the work my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has done in strengthening and making more robust the policy on sewage discharge. The River Colne, a beauty spot that abuts my constituency and is very popular with my constituents, is significantly affected by sewage discharge. Again, we need to ensure that there are effective measures that make a substantial difference.

On biodiversity net gain, I simply make a request to Ministers that when the guidance is issued about how that will be managed through the planning process, we ensure as far as possible that biodiversity gain through planning is maintained locally, so that the local communities that see the impact of the developments in their area also see the benefit of the biodiversity gain envisaged through the planning system.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak on fracking, an issue close to my constituents’ hearts and mine, and to reject clearly the unnecessary and transparently political new clause 12. Since I was elected to this place in 2017, I have spoken out against fracking, held debates, proposed Bills, submitted questions, chaired an all-party group, spoken at planning committees and hearings and appeals against QCs, and generally made a nuisance of myself to the Government Front Bench about fracking, because I wanted it stopped at Marsh Lane and in North East Derbyshire, and I make no apologies for that. I was delighted when the Government put a moratorium on fracking, and I am glad to have played a very small role in getting us to that place.

Yet suddenly, a year and a half after the moratorium was imposed, we have a burning issue—a problem so acute that a series of straw men have been wheeled out from the Opposition Benches over the course of this debate, creating the need to ban something that is effectively dead already. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is not in her place at present, said we only have empty words. Well, empty words have a funny way of stopping any fracking happening since that moratorium in late 2017, and of ensuring that licences in her own county were partially handed back by the operator of the fracking area.

Why is it that 49 Labour MPs have suddenly decided that there is new urgency to legislate on this matter? There is not. We know there is no urgency, precisely because those 49 Labour MPs have shown almost zero interest in that issue in recent times. Forty-three of those 49 were in Parliament between 2017 and 2019. Where were those hon. Members when the all-party parliamentary group on fracking, which I chaired, talked about all these issues in extraordinary detail?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

  According to research compiled by the Local Government Association, the manufacturers of food packaging in the UK contribute only about 10% of the cost of recycling their products. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the efforts that we are undertaking to improve the recycling of waste food packaging, we need to see the manufacturers of that packaging contribute much more towards the costs of recycling their products, in line with the contribution they make in other countries, rather than leaving our council tax payers to foot most of the bill?

[George Eustice]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend on this matter. As he will be aware, the Environment Bill introduces the concept of extended producer responsibility, and we are consulting on that at the moment. In future, the manufacturers and the users of packaging for products will take responsibility for recycling it.