Driven Grouse Shooting

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

As instructed by you, Mrs Harris, I will restrict my comments only to the impacts of grouse shooting on Thirsk and Malton, due to my role on the Front Bench. I am very keen to speak in this debate, as I have lived in the area my whole life, and grouse shooting is hugely important there. I also declare an interest in that I have been grouse shooting once, although not very successfully.

My biggest concern right now for Thirsk and Malton is that it is a tinderbox, as its geography and landscape pose a risk of wildfire. Clearly, that is largely because of the exceptionally dry weather that we have had over recent weeks and months. I am also concerned that the policies pursued by Natural England are exacerbating the problem.

I am keen to speak because, having read the petition and its claims, I think the 400 people in my constituency who signed it have been misled. The petition describes driven grouse shooting as

“bad for people, the environment and wildlife”,

and bad for the economy—I want to talk about that in the context of Thirsk and Malton. The petition states that

“grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other…uses”,

but it does not set out what those other uses are. The only ones I could find to replace the industry of grouse shooting were perhaps wind farms, forestation or sheep farming. My dad was a sheep farmer, and there is plenty of sheep farming in Thirsk and Malton. It is not particularly prosperous and I cannot imagine that the revenue attached to it would make up for the revenue loss if grouse shooting ended. With wind farms and forestation, a completely different cohort of people would potentially get employment from those uses, but it would be nothing like the extent to which my constituency benefits from grouse shooting today.

Hundreds of people in my constituency are directly employed in the grouse shooting industry and the jobs and businesses connected to it. Others have mentioned the same. I will mention one or two of my highest profile hostelries: the Star at Harome, somewhere very close to my heart; the Black Swan at Helmsley; the Talbot at Malton; the Owl at Hawnby; and the Feversham Arms at Church Houses. Those beautiful hostelries in a beautiful landscape very much contribute to the attractions of tourism in Thirsk and Malton. Many people in this House and people I meet all around the country have visited.

There are also the connected shops, such as Carters in Helmsley, and the caterers, the beaters—which my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), mentioned —the loaders and the picker-uppers. Not only do all these people get an income from grouse shooting, but the industry builds a community in our location and in communities around it. That is hugely important, and a mixture of people are present in the sector. I have beautiful moorland, including in Hawnby, Bransdale, Farndale, Snilesworth and Bilsdale—I am very proud of those areas and have visited a number of times.

So I do not believe that grouse shooting is bad for those people in my constituency—far from it. I also do not believe that it is “bad…for the environment”. What would be bad for the environment is a serious wildfire. We saw a very serious wildfire at Saddleworth in 2018. It was unmanaged locations that led to that wildfire, which affected 5 million people who were breathing in things like lead and cadmium that were released in it. Dozens of people passed away early because of that wildfire and its effect on air quality. The peat in those locations has been irreparably damaged.

Let me read a comment from a parliamentary briefing last year on wildfires. It explained that

“older heather burns with greater intensity”,

and that to prevent wildfires

“vegetation management must be conducted continuously”.

That is why Saddleworth ran out of control, and that is why there was a serious fire on the edge of my constituency at Fylingdales in 2003. That was the only area of moorland that was not being managed, and a fire happened in that location.

Peat is so important in carbon sequestration, but much of the carbon was released because of the wildfires. We saw on our TV screens recently the horrific wildfires in Los Angeles that destroyed properties and businesses and, of course, caused deaths. That was a result of negligence by the local authorities. I believe the policies being pursued by Natural England are a deliberate attempt to close down things like grouse shooting in my constituency and those of others.

There are potential risks for the Peak district. A report stated that there was

“the frightening potential of fire... reaching extremes both in the rate of spread and flame lengths far beyond the capacity of control”

of the fire and rescue service. The report continued:

“Little can be done to control the topography of the area or the increasingly fire-supportive weather, but fuel loading can be addressed.”

But that is not being addressed and it will get worse—that is my point. I think that this is an ideological position being taken by our regulator.

In terms of the benefits to wildlife, again, the petition states that grouse shooting is “bad…for wildlife”. Not at all: after grouse shooting ended in the Berwyn special protected area, the population of curlews dropped by 79% and the population of golden plovers dropped by 90%, but the population of corvids, such as crows and the like—which can, of course, be very destructive to wildlife—increased by 600%.

I am very concerned about the position that Natural England has taken. It is very important that the Government make sure that Natural England does the right thing, because there are many other measures that Natural England are considering that would further undermine grouse shooting in Thirsk and Malton. For example, Natural England is consulting on changing the definition of deep peat. Currently, if deep peat is 40 cm or more, burning cannot be used to control the fuel load. Natural England is considering a consultation on reducing that figure to 30 cm. That would mean that the vast majority of the fuel load on the North York moors would not be able to be controlled by burning.

Natural England’s solution is mowing, of course. Could mowing be a potential solution? The Scottish Parliament hearing on this issue with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service warned that mowing excess vegetation can

“leave a dry layer that actually encourages the spread of fire”.

However, winter burning

“is by far the most effective because it removes a fuel in its entirety”.

But Natural England has banned winter burning, which is causing the increased fuel load.

We can add that to other issues, such as the withdrawal of general licenses for vermin control and the withdrawal of general licenses for the release of game birds in special protection areas, in terms of that burning. There is also a consultation now on raising the bar for getting a shotgun licence. That would mean that many people would not be able to get a shotgun licence, which would reduce the number of people participating in grouse shooting in areas such as Thirsk and Malton. If we add all these different things up, there is a clear picture: in my view, it is a back-door attempt to end grouse shooting across the country, not least in Thirsk and Malton.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Harris, and I thank all the Members who have spoken in the debate so far. It is fair to say that I will take a slightly different approach on this issue.

I am very proud to have a very active community when it comes to people contacting me, particularly about nature. Six hundred and thirty-five of my constituents signed this petition, which is the highest number of signatories for any constituency in the country. That stems from a deep concern about management practices that affect our community, where we have several grouse moors that are managed.

Grouse shooting has a profound environmental and ecological significance. It is a pastime rooted in privilege and exclusion, which inflicts immense harms on our uplands, our wildlife and our communities. It is hard to imagine that it has any place in a modern, fair and environmentally responsible Britain. I saw on one website that £7,000 a day is how much some estates charge for this excursion.

I have been out and about with gamekeepers in my constituency. They have put to me all these arguments and after many hours of debate, we agreed to disagree. I understand some of the points that colleagues have been making, but I will set out exactly why I think grouse shooting is harmful and requires more regulation.

I am really concerned that grouse shooting is seen as a harmless countryside tradition or a nostalgic relic of rural life. It is a highly commercialised industry in which vast tracts of our uplands are intensively managed not for biodiversity or for the public good, but to produce unnaturally large numbers of one bird species, the red grouse, for the gun. In Scotland, there are vicarious responsibilities and a licensing scheme, and I wonder whether the Minister has a view on those.

To achieve such an unnatural level of grouse, landowners routinely undertake practices that are environmentally destructive and ecologically reckless. They include the widespread burning of heather in moorlands, as we have heard; the draining of some peatlands; and—I am sure no responsible landowner or land manager allows it—the illegal persecution of birds of prey, including many protected species, such as the hen harrier, for which I am the species champion, the golden eagle, the buzzard and the peregrine falcon.

According to the RSPB, the majority of confirmed illegal killings of birds of prey in the past 10 years were linked to land managed for pheasant, partridge or grouse shooting, and RSPB figures show that at least one bird of prey is illegally killed or injured every four days in the UK. Given how precious these species are to our biodiversity, that is a shocking statistic.

The petition was signed by 635 of my constituents. The Moorland Association’s website states that just 700 people are directly employed in grouse moor management. I recognise that, as others have said, there are spin-out commercial opportunities. However, given how vast the contribution is—I think somebody mentioned £52 million earlier—if I were a beater, I might be unionising to take more of that profit home to my family.

The environmental consequences are well documented and grave. Burning heather damages fragile peat bogs, which are among the most vital carbon stores in the country. This degradation means that, instead of being locked away, carbon cannot be stored effectively, which accelerates climate change. The poor condition of our peat was recognised by the last Government. They brought in the peatlands strategy, which I welcomed but felt did not go far enough.

Burning heather heightens flood risks for downstream communities by stripping the land of its natural ability to hold water. I invite anyone to go to a moorland, pick up some sphagnum moss and give it good old squeeze—the water drips out of it, showing how much of a sponge it is. It stores water in our uplands, which is so important. I am very privileged to represent a city with so many hills and rivers, and downstream flooding in our region is very important. We want our peatlands to be restored so that that water is held upland, and this practice is holding that back.

We also want to ensure that our landscapes are not impoverished, stripped of biodiversity and managed for a single commercial interest.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on being a hen harrier parliamentary champion; I am the puffin parliamentary champion, so we have something in common. She talks about somebody other than landowners managing biodiversity rather in these landscapes. Who would that be, who would pay for it and how much would it cost?

[Olivia Blake]

Those are very good questions, and there are a number of private resources that we could attend to. The Environmental Audit Committee did work on nature capital in the last Parliament, and I think it will this year be publishing a report on it, which am excited to see. For restoration practices, carbon credits are another option. There are also some great landowners who are doing the right thing, whether we are talking about water companies that lease land to grouse moors, which is the case in some places; our national trusts and similar bodies; or the RSPB itself. Smaller-scale land parcels are now even being bought up by organisations such as the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, which are trying to put nature at their heart.

The Government have been open and quick to the game on heather burning, and I welcome their recent consultation on the current ban on deep peat burning, which I get a lot of correspondence about. When the burning is happening, because of the direction of the wind, it comes down the valleys into my constituency. There are moorlands in my constituency, but the majority of people live downwind. It is causing real discomfort for my constituents who have health problems, whether asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or lung cancer. All those people have contacted me about the challenges they face with their breathing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

Clearly, the reason why our moorlands are in the state they are in today is the collective management that is taking place, whether by mechanical means or through the moorland management burning plans that exist. If we were to end the burning of heather altogether, we would allow the woody stock to generate that has led to the very fires that were rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). Right now, gamekeepers are the people on the ground trying to cope with those fires and help our fire services out.

No burning would mean a build-up of vegetation and woody stock, which is itself a negative influence on the sustainability of heather for bird species of all kinds, but what is perhaps worse is that eventually, in the natural cycle, such overgrown heather is much more prone to catching fire. When it does, it will lead to huge and far more damaging wildfires, which are costly to communities and hugely damaging to the environment.

I have seen this for myself in my West Yorkshire constituency on Ilkley moor—another moor that is not managed, exactly the same as Fylingdales moor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. A series of smaller and cooler man-made fires, agreed and signed off via an approved moorland management burning plan, is vital for enhancing the ecological status of moorland, helps to improve the complex and desirable mosaic of the moorland, and significantly reduces the risk of dangerous unplanned fires. Once we understand that burning is the management of a natural process, and not destruction for destruction’s sake, it is far harder to justify banning it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he also concerned, as I am, about the proposed change in the definition of deep peat? Currently, it is defined as peat deeper than 40 cm, but there is a proposal to reduce that figure to 30 cm, which would mean that much of our moorlands cannot be managed through burning, leading to a much greater fire risk.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I was just going to come to that. Natural England is engaged in that consultation right now. It is not just me who is concerned about the consultation process and the direction that Natural England is going in; the concern is shared by my hon. Friend and by Members across the House who have moorland in their constituencies where it is necessary to be able to burn in order to control the woody stock of heather, so that we can create a mosaic that benefits not just the peatland that sits below it but the many species that want to eat the new shoots of heather that come through. That would benefit not only red grouse but the many other bird species I have already spoken about. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Minister to look carefully at the steps that Natural England is taking, because its current direction is not sustainable for our rural economies.

The benefits of grouse shooting are not limited to environmental improvements. Grouse shooting and the management of our moorland provide an invaluable and highly successful land use for our upland areas that, crucially, relies on not just public money, but private investment. Directly within the industry, 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs are supported, contributing nearly £47 million to the UK economy. Those numbers may seem small compared with other industries, but the importance of grouse shooting is where that economic stimulus is felt.

Upland rural communities are some of the most remote and deprived in the country. It is a huge challenge to promote inward investment or deliver efficient and effective public services in those communities. Alongside activities like farming, grouse shooting provides a vital economic pillar to keep our communities alive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), like other Members, picked up on that very point. He rightly identified the complex social fabric in the hard-working communities up in Wensleydale, Hawes and beyond. Upland communities are some of the most remote. Banning grouse shooting would cause community centres such as pubs and hotels—like the Star near Thirsk, which I am familiar with—to shut, and those communities would be unable to rely on the positive benefits for employment, for families and for the viability of public services.

The benefits of grouse shooting extend well into our urban areas, as rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who talked about Holland & Holland. That demonstrates the wider economic impacts of grouse shooting. We know how important access to green spaces is, and the public obviously agree: 3 million people visit the North York moors, the Yorkshire dales and the Peak district annually. Why? Because they love the landscape.

The wider public health benefits of how grouse moors are managed are there for us all to see. Research shows that the perennial leaf coverage of heather helps to reduce air pollution, but that coverage is sustained only by the moorland being predominantly funded and managed for the purpose of grouse shooting. Managed grouse moorland also provides a defence against tick-borne diseases. The management of ticks is in the interest of our groundkeepers and of our farmers, as it protects their livestock, but another benefit is fewer ticks to spread human-borne diseases, some of which can be fatal. If we take away the economic incentives to carry out that work by banning grouse shooting, we lose those additional benefits.

I have covered many of the positive consequences of grouse shooting, but I would like to talk about the petition itself. Campaigners for banning grouse shooting have raised flooding as a concern, yet many of the organisations I have spoken to that advocate for shooting to continue say that the exact opposite is true. In the words that I have heard continuously, the wetter, the better. Indeed, many groundkeepers have spent the better part of the last few decades filling in and removing drains put in in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically to improve the outcomes for grouse shooting and to the benefit of flood mitigation downstream. I have seen that for myself on Keighley moor in my constituency. Without grouse shooting, those ditches and drains would still be in place today.

Another concern that has been raised, not just in this debate but in others that have preceded it, is predator control. We must strike a balance here. Many predatory species, such as foxes, are not endangered, yet many of their prey animals are. While grouse themselves are not endangered, other bird species that benefit from this predator control are. Where the control of predators has been relaxed, numbers of other bird species, such as the lapwing, golden plover and rare merlin, have dropped significantly. We must make a choice about what we wish to prioritise: an unendangered predator species or the endangered prey themselves. Taking no action is not a neutral action. It is heartening to hear that, thanks in part to moorland managed for grouse shooting, hen harrier numbers reached record levels in 2023, demonstrating the positive effect that moorland management can have on our bird of prey species.

We should also be absolutely clear that the harming of birds of prey is a crime, and I have yet to meet a grouse shooting organisation that believes that should change. Once again, the rising populations of our birds of prey demonstrate that grouse shooting works for our environment and not against it.

I am pleased that the Government’s written response to the petition was that there are no plans at present to ban grouse shooting, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that this remains the case and, further, that no Labour Government will ban grouse shooting. I would also be grateful if the Minister could say what he will do with his ministerial colleagues to hold Natural England to account, to make sure that it does not run away with the narrative of wanting to reduce the definition of deep peat from 40 cm to 30 cm, as that would have catastrophic consequences for how moorland is managed.

Grouse moorland management is a real success story of balancing economic, social and environmental activities. Those who wish to ban it because they feel that an unmanaged, natural approach would be better should be careful what they wish for. Without the financial incentive of the shoot, none of these environmental benefits for our moorland, our bird species or our climate would happen. I am certain that they would not happen without an agenda driven by private investment.

I thank all those in the sector who work enormously hard around the clock to enhance our moorland—our gamekeepers, our groundskeepers, our farmers, our rural estates, our land managers and our stakeholders such as the Moorland Association, BASC, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Countryside Alliance. I thank them for their continued work.

We all know that almost every acre of the UK is managed in one way or another, and has been for hundreds if not thousands of years. There is no Siberian tundra in the UK, no Australian outback, no Amazon rainforest or American wild west. We should not pretend that the land we love is the product of a random choice of nature, but instead we should recognise that it is a collective accomplishment of generation after generation of our ancestors and their stewardship of the land. Britain’s natural landscape is, ironically, a product of unnatural human management. Grouse moorland management might only be a part of that wider story, but it is an illustrative and successful one that I hope will continue long into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I question how the Minister defines sound advice, because the advice that I have seen, from people who manage the moorland, is that if Natural England gets its way and changes the definition of deep peat from 40 cm to 30 cm there will be half—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In Thirsk and Malton—

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Hollinrake, you were asked to raise only issues connected to your own constituency.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I apologise, Mrs Harris, but this is about my constituency. In half of my constituency, the moorland will not be able to be managed. The fuel load will increase, wildfires will occur, and it will make my constituency completely unviable for grouse shooting. Is the Minister not concerned that Natural England has a hidden agenda that will affect constituencies such as mine?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Natural England provides statutory guidance and advice to Ministers, but Ministers decide. We are looking at its advice, but no decision has yet been taken.

I now turn to the economic benefits that shooting sports can provide to rural communities. We recognise that shooting can be an important part of a local economy, and as we have heard, it provides direct and indirect employment opportunities. The Government recognise the cultural value that shooting sports can provide to rural communities, in addition to their economic contribution.

I listened with some joy to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland talking about the wonders of the lek, but he also went on to talk about the potential benefits of eco-tourism, which may well be the way forward in the future. We must appreciate those things, because the Government are committed to improving the quality of life of people living and working in rural areas, so that we can realise the full potential of rural businesses and communities. To achieve that, we are ensuring that the needs of people and businesses in rural areas are at the heart of policymaking. Our priority is to achieve a sustainable outcome for landscapes that works to recover our environment and wildlife, as well as protecting the interests of people and the rural economy.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is another of my near neighbours. I did not use to have many near neighbours who were anywhere near as friendly as my new near neighbours, but Cambridgeshire has changed. Cambridgeshire has changed for a very clear reason: Cambridgeshire lost trust in the Conservative party. I am determined to build trust across the entire country by maintaining, over a prolonged period, the levels of support necessary to allow people to farm successfully. My answer to my hon. Friend is to look at the Budget, where we saw an increase in the farming budget. We will look to maintain proper support into the future because, exactly as has been said, these are long-term businesses and long-term interests. The reason that they are long-term is that we are all going to need to eat.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Minister talks about the transition. I talked to my farmers in Bedale on Friday, and the only transition they can see is the transition from family farms to the state. Does he realise that the farming industry is one of the least profitable sectors in the country? The return on capital employed is 0.5%—that is the Government’s own figure—and that is around a 20th of the typical profit margin in the UK. Other than by some warped socialist ideology, how can he justify taking away 40 years of profits for the typical farmer?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman may wish to remember that the agricultural transition was embarked upon by the previous Government. It is a seven-year transition process, and we are just over halfway through. It is important that it is maintained in a stable and sensible way, and that is exactly what we are doing. My answer to his question is that the challenge put to me was to maintain stability and not to tear up those schemes—to maintain them and make them work—and that is exactly what we are doing.

Farming and Food Security

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention and for the representations that he has made to me personally on this issue. I know that he feels passionately about it and, indeed, it is a very important issue. I am afraid that we will need to wait until the conclusion of the spending review, which is normal practice in government, but his words have been heard and his concerns recognised.

Farming and food security are the foundations of our economy, our communities and, indeed, our environment. Farmers were badly let down by the previous Government who offered only sticking plasters to deal with the great challenges faced by British farming. This Government will work with farmers to help them transition to new farming methods that are more sustainable both financially and environmentally. We will reduce the soaring energy prices that have hit so many food producers so hard. There will be no more dodgy trade deals that undermine British farmers. This will be a Government on the side of Britain’s farmers.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to say that farmers are a very important part of the community. His leader, the Prime Minister, said to the NFU last year that solar farms should not be created by taking advantage of tenant farmers. This is a live issue in my constituency and many others where tenant farmers will be deprived of their livelihood by new solar farms. Will he stand by that commitment and say quite clearly to his Cabinet colleagues that tenant farmers must not lose their livelihood by the creation of a solar farm?

[Steve Reed]

I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman is making and thank him for his intervention. I will comment later in my speech on further support that we would wish to offer tenant farmers. I do recognise the situation that they are in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

The environmental land management schemes are taking the right approach, but they need to work better for all farmers. Too many farmers feel that they cannot access them or do not get the support that they need. My proposal is not that the Government will dictate to farmers how those changes should happen, but that we should work with farmers, in a partnership, to hear their voices and allow them to influence changes to those schemes that will make them more effective in achieving the many outcomes that we seek to get from that Government funding.

We will not tell farmers how to farm. We will achieve this by working together with them in that new partnership. I recently met the Tenant Farmers Association to hear its views about improving support for tenant farmers. I agree that the proposal for a tenant farming commissioner has merit, and we will make an announcement shortly.

Our new deal will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals. The Conservative Government’s trade deal with Australia and New Zealand is a disaster for our British farmers. They were sold down the river, as the Conservative party allowed the import of food produced to standards so low that they would be unacceptable in this country. Instead of backing British farmers, the Conservatives undermined British farmers. We want to see more support for British farmers—more opportunities for British farmers, not fewer.

We have already delivered early first steps for British farmers, securing access to the US market for UK beetroot growers and to the South African market for poultry producers. Instead of the botched Tory Brexit deal that threw up barriers to trade and blocked Great British food exports, we will seek a new veterinary agreement with the EU, to tear those barriers down and get our food exports moving again, putting money straight into the pockets of British farmers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. He talks about the importance to communities of farmers, particularly intergenerational farmers. We understand that consideration is being given to withdrawing agricultural property relief in the Budget at the end of October. Will he confirm that that will not happen? If it did, it would be the end of intergenerational farming in this country.

[Steve Reed]

I understand the hon. Member’s point and the importance of intergenerational farming, but he will understand that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the Budget process.

Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022 Draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 Draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am not sure who chose me to serve on this Delegated Legislation Committee, but we do not often have the chance to discuss something in which we have a genuine interest. I represent a rural constituency, and it is a great pleasure to do so. The Minister has been fantastic in her engagement with my farmers, and she knows some of their concerns about many of the areas that have been discussed. I really appreciate her engagement.

I shall make a few short points. My very good friend, the Minister, has talked about the quantum staying the same with regard to what farmers will receive when moving from one system to another. Can she confirm that the amount that farmers receive overall will be the same? There is a worry that we are moving from a simple, stable system, as has been alluded to, to a much more complex system that must include lots of checks and balances, because we are looking at an outcome-based policy—people are paid for outcomes, rather than acreage. How much of that money will be absorbed by the administration and bureaucracy of the process? It is hugely important that farmers receive the right amount, and the amounts that they have been used to.

As has been said, the amount that farmers receive directly is reducing, and other schemes are supposed to compensate for that. I think that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that some of the pilot schemes are not particularly well explained, detailed or clear. A lot of farmers have seen a reduction in revenue—vital support—particularly hill farmers, and they have not seen a commensurate increase in revenue arising from other schemes that they might be in. As my hon. Friend knows, in the past the countryside stewardship scheme was hugely bureaucratic and often it felt like people gave more money to be involved in it than they received in compensation for running the scheme itself. I know that my farmers would very much like to see a delay in the proposed reduction and more development work on the pilots before we move to a system of reduced payments.

We all know that food security and energy security are really important. I am seeing an increasing amount of my productive farmland—the best and most versatile land—going under solar farm applications. That is equivalent to hundreds and hundreds of acres in what is a very productive part of the country. Our local authorities in their wisdom have declared climate emergencies, and they are using that as a way to get round any requirements to keep the best and most fertile land for farmland. They argue, “Actually, we have a climate emergency, and therefore that overrides the need to keep the best and most fertile land for growing food.” We have energy production imperatives and targets because of the race to net zero, and at the same time we have not got food production targets. Our self-sufficiency was 75% in 1985, but it is now 60%. If we had a target for self-sufficiency to grow to that higher amount, perhaps that would act as a check and balance against local authorities giving consent for solar farms.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There was a debate in Westminster Hall about this last week, and the points he is making were amplified. The critical thing is that these two things are not unrelated. You can shorten the food chain, reduce the number of air miles and grow more of what we consume locally. Then one is both serving the objective of aiding the planet and making us more secure in food in these uncertain times. He is absolutely right that there is a need for an urgent review of Government policy, and a change in planning law, if necessary, to prevent monstrous solar parks from taking up valuable agricultural land.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I was lucky enough to speak at the end of that debate, although I was able to be there only for the last few minutes of it. It is absolutely true. It seems perverse that we are putting solar farms on productive farmland and not putting solar panels on top of every commercial building, school, hospital and prison. There must be some reason why we are doing it that way, but it would make obvious sense to put panels in those locations rather than on farmland. It is a debate that we need to have. I have been to see the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is very supportive about the need for more clarity.

We are moving away from acreage payments, as the rest of Europe has, for example, to a system that is based on public goods. That means that we are putting our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. That is the reality, because they have to do stuff to get that money. That means investment and the cost of capital. We must maintain that fair and level playing field through trade agreements and through the system of payments that we make. I fear, and I know that the Minister has some sympathy with this thought, that we are potentially putting our farmers at a disadvantage. That is something we need to be very careful about.

English Wine Week

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the importance of the single internal market. I would be delighted to promote his Echlinville gin to my constituents in Arundel and South Downs.

I was talking about awards and the quality of our English products. In recent months, Nyetimber—another vineyard in my constituency—won four awards at the 2020 Champagne and Sparkling Wine World Championships. Closer to home, we should not forget the excellent work done by Trevor Clough and Jason Humphries at Digby Fine English—also in my constituency—who have been awarded the contract for the House of Commons gift shop’s first ever official sparkling wine, meaning that every visitor to this House can leave with a genuinely sparkling souvenir. It is happening not only in my constituency but across England, and it has been a pleasure to hear from hon. Friends about a wealth of other first-class wine estates.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Right across England, and indeed even in North Yorkshire—which might sound very northerly for a wine—there are the wonderful, award-winning Ryedale vineyards that produce the fantastically named Yorkshire’s Lass and Yorkshire’s Lad white wine. It really is top-drawer and worthy of that award. Does my hon. Friend think we might push the Treasury to introduce some incentives for our smaller wine growers—cellar door relief, for example, or perhaps small vineyards relief—which would encourage more tourism to our lovely constituencies as well as more wine sales?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I look forward to consuming Yorkshire’s Lass or Yorkshire’s Lad. We should certainly support our small producers in what is, as I will go on to say, a growing industry in the United Kingdom.

A number of other colleagues have joined me to talk about the wine estates in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has mentioned the Chafor vineyard in his constituency, and I see on the Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who plays host to Bolney, and Kingscote in East Grinstead.

English sparkling wine has had a very busy year despite the pandemic. With the current trend to stay local and to buy local due to the pandemic, the industry has adapted well to current restrictions. WineGB data suggests that the industry saw an increase of 30% in 2020 on the previous year, with 7 million bottles sold, and we have a great deal more to look forward to. Dermot Sugrue, winemaker at Whiston Estate, wrote recently that the 2020 harvest is

“in a word: Superb. Best…since 2003 & 2011.”

Peter Gladwin, the proprietor of the Nutbourne Vineyards, told me that he believes in some ways covid restrictions have helped the UK wine industry. Buying local, staycations and the multitude of good publicity have all boosted direct-to-consumer sales.

Wine tourism has also seen an increase in the lockdown, with more visitors than ever heading to our UK vineyards and wineries for their holidays, enhancing—and this is a very serious point—the rural economy and much-needed employment. A recent report commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority, which itself does an excellent job at promoting English wine, estimated that we have seen 33,000 visitors coming to our 51 vineyards and 11 wineries.

If the authors of a recent report on climate change—another very serious topic—are to be believed, the South Downs wine harvest will only grow. Today, just 0.4% of agricultural land is currently used for viticulture, whereas the report estimates that up to 34% of land could be suitable in the future. This potential is already apparent in the wider country, as 2021 has seen 1.4 million vines planted, and over 5,000 acres have been planted over the past five years.

With restrictions easing, we cannot stop here. We must continue to try to help this great industry grow, and one way to help is through taxation. Wine Drinkers UK explained to me that currently excise duty on a bottle of still wine is £2.23 plus VAT, while excise duty on a bottle of sparkling wine is £2.86 plus VAT. There is literally a bubble tax. Maybe it is the forerunner of a broader tax on carbon emissions, but I have to say it does seem like a really odd place to start.

Grouse Shooting

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 266770, relating to grouse shooting.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. My role on the Petitions Committee, which I take very seriously, as does every other member of the Committee, is to ensure that petitions with more than 100,000 signatures get debated, and that the arguments put forward by the petitioners are heard and the issue thoroughly debated. That is what I am charged with doing today. As a Member of Parliament for an urban constituency, grouse shooting is not an issue that I know a huge amount about. Not only is it not an activity in Ipswich; it is not an activity in Suffolk, because there are no grouse in Suffolk. However, I am here today.

I thank the 111,965 people who signed the petition. It has taken a while to get it debated, but we are here. The petition calls for a ban on driven grouse shooting, stating that

“Wilful blindness is no longer an option”.

Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay and Mark Avery from Wild Justice

“believe that intensive grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife. People; grouse shooting is economically insignificant when contrasted with other real and potential uses of the UK’s uplands. Environment; muirburn impacts negatively upon climate change and drainage leads to flooding and erosion. Wildlife; the wholesale culling of all predators and Mountain Hares has a disastrous effect on the ecology of these areas and the industry is underpinned by a criminal tradition of raptor persecution which shows no signs of abating. It’s time to provide an opportunity to implement immediate, legislative and meaningful measures to address this abhorrently destructive practice.

That is what the petition calls for. For those different reasons, they want grouse shooting to be banned.

There was a debate on this issue in October 2016—I have read the debate in Hansard. To be honest, I do not think the issues seem to have changed much. Probably today we will hear the same arguments put forward from those who want to ban it and probably the same arguments from those who wish it to continue. I appreciate that many colleagues here feel strongly about this issue, which is much more live in their constituencies. I will open the debate and facilitate what I hope will be a scintillating discussion about the issue, but I feel less able to inject personal experience and understanding into it because I have never been grouse shooting and it does not happen in my constituency.

I thought it was only fair to read out the call from Chris Packham and the others who set up the petition, but many people put forward different arguments. Many make economic arguments about the benefits that grouse shooting brings and about the moorland management, effort and expertise that go into preserving these complex habitats. Of course, many of the landscapes are very pleasing to the eye and generate significant amounts of tourism. My understanding is that the North York moors alone often have more than 8 million visitors a year. That does not seem to be an insignificant economic benefit.

My understanding is that grouse moor owners spend more than £50 million a year on preserving these complex environments. Some 42,500 work days every year are generated through this activity, and 1,500 full-time jobs are tied to it—about 700 directly and about 800 indirectly. It is also worth bearing in mind that these are isolated upland communities, so one has to wonder what else would generate that number of jobs. There is that economic benefit, and from my research it also seems that grouse moors often bring people together, so there is a social impact to the economy. Levels of loneliness in isolated rural areas where grouse shooting happens are lower than in other areas.

I did not come across any evidence that said that an alternative use would promote better natural capital than the unique environment that we are dealing with here. I do not really hear what the alternatives would be in those areas, apart from grouse shooting. If rewilding were suggested, we could have pumas, lynxes and honey badgers running wild in these areas. That would be quite an interesting spectacle, so perhaps tourism would continue to be popular, because people would like to see how that happens.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Lots of people think that woodland is a habitat for lots of wildlife, but that is not always the case. Coniferous woodland is almost devoid of wildlife. People point to the reforestation or forestation of these areas, but that actually increases the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by four to six times per hectare, compared with moorland.

[Tom Hunt]

That is as very good point from somebody who clearly has as level of understanding of this topic that I could only wish to have. Looking at the issue from my perspective, it seems that there are environmental arguments for and against, but the economic argument is unchallengeable, in terms of the tangible benefits that the activity brings to the lives of thousands of people in those areas.

I look forward to this debate. I understand that many people feel strongly about the issue. I do not know whether the debate will really advance things much. I predict—I might be wrong—that it will go in much the same direction as the one five years ago. I am pretty sure that we will be back here again in two or three years’ time, because it seems as though there are some individuals who are incredibly motivated to stop this practice. I fear that, for some, this is more about a dislike of perceived posh people having fun more than about any logical arguments about the pros and cons, and we would not want that kind of class warfare. I open this up to the Floor, and I look forward to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I might go on to say why it is problematic in the way they are managed. One of the problems that the campaigners supporting the petition have had is that they have got to the point where they are saying that the only answer is a ban on driven grouse shooting, because the people who manage the moorlands have not been prepared to meet them halfway and to address some of the issues—for example, the hen harrier persecution, the burning of the heather and so on.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On hen harriers, is the hon. Lady aware that there were 50 hen harrier chicks in 2006, zero in 2013 and 60 last year? It is really important that we look at the evidence and do not move to emotive arguments, and it is really important that we look at the facts. Does she not accept that there is work going on to improve hen harrier breeding?

[Kerry McCarthy]

There is work going on, but the hen harrier population declined across the UK and the Isle of Man by 24% between 2004 and 2016, with just 575 pairs remaining. Estimates suggest that there is sufficient habitat and food availability to support a population of over 2,650 pairs. We know that in England there is available habitat for more than 300 pairs, yet we are down to a very small number.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is the point: the numbers did decline from 2006 to 2013, but now they are on the rise again. It is really important that we look at the positive work that is going on in these areas rather than just thinking that it is all about the way that moors are managed.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The figures are nowhere near where they should be, in terms of what we could support, and it is not just—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

They are going up.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Member says that the numbers are going up, but they are going up from a very small base. As I say, the figures are nowhere near where they should be.

However, the fact is that raptor persecution is illegal and should not be happening, but it is happening on the grouse moors. Regardless of what the numbers are, the death of even one hen harrier is illegal and it should not be part of grouse moor management. That is the point that we should not lose sight of. It is not just a conservation measure to protect these birds; it is illegal to kill them.

Protecting this habitat could allow it to act as a valuable carbon sinks, offer flood protection and so on. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) might have something more to say about its role in flood protection. When I went to those areas after the floods of 2015-16, and when I have spoken to people after the more recent floods in those areas, I found real concern about the impact that the management of the moorlands is having.

As Chris Packham says, a healthy upland habitat should be covered with trees, blanket bog and deep layers of sphagnum moss that act like a great sponge, with deep peat storing all the water. However, the management of grouse moors directly militates against this, with the burning of the heather, the illegal raptor persecution that I have mentioned and the extermination of mountain hares. Chris Packham also spoke about weasels and stoats being caught up in spring traps, crows caught in cage traps, foxes caught in snares and endangered protected species also accidentally being caught up, and about the use of medicated grit and the leeching of toxins from lead shot into the groundwater. The bottom line is that all these measures to protect the grouse are not in the interests of conservation; it is just so that the grouse can then be shot.

Just as I do not accept the conservation argument, I do not accept the economic argument either. As Chris Packham says, the Government have never quantified this matter. The lack of data and the lack of transparency mean that we cannot say with any degree of accuracy how much money is going where, who is benefiting and who is not benefiting.

Chris Packham says that in Scotland a bit more information has been released. Nevertheless, if Scotland was thought to be the size of Ben Nevis, the economic benefit from grouse shooting there would be the size of a small banjo. That seems to be the official interpretation. I do not know why banjos have been brought into it; I do not know the difference between a small banjo and a large banjo. He is saying that, given that the area of land given over to grouse shooting in Scotland is between 12% and 18% of the total land, something far more worthwhile than the equivalent of a small banjo, in terms of economic benefits from that area, could be produced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh.

I do not accept that we should ban driven grouse shooting, and nor do I accept that there is a wilful blindness to the issues. I point out to the petitioners that, although I am sure their concerns are earnestly expressed, there is a blindness in some quarters to the positive impact on the people, economy, environment and wildlife of these areas from our management of grouse moors.

To take matters in turn, I think the petition says grouse shooting is “bad for people”. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) referred to our constituencies jointly covering the beautiful North York Moors, and I fail to see how it is bad for people that tens of thousands of them enjoy the beautiful purple and green-carpeted North York Moors, which for their wellbeing alone must have huge value. The landscape would simply not look like that if it was not managed in that way.

I have been up to the moors with the gamekeepers on a number of occasions, looking at different parts of the moors in my constituency. The parts that are being managed are green and purple; the areas that are left unmanaged as trials have increased canopy, and they are very grey and very poor in terms of wildlife—it is completely different. Left unmanaged, the moors just would not look like they do today, and visitors would be far less likely to come.

Of course, that would affect the farming communities, which are deeply embedded in the world of conservation. In my view, the people who understand conservation more than anybody else are the people who have lived in these areas all their lives, not necessarily the people who are opining on this stuff from further afield. The point has been made that leaving the moors unmanaged would be tremendously bad for the people who work in the supply chain and all the businesses.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made a fair point: perhaps those people would find other jobs. I really do not see where they would find other jobs in North Yorkshire to the level that they have. A huge number of people are employed in the hotels and restaurants and as caterers, beaters or gamekeepers. People from all different social strata are involved in the whole economy around the grouse moors and grouse shooting. As pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), the sector provides £2 billion to the UK economy and 1,500 full-time equivalent jobs. There are huge benefits to people in constituencies such as mine in terms of the wider economy and their wellbeing, so I do not accept that grouse shooting is bad for people.

I also not do accept that grouse shooting is bad for the environment. The point has been made that the moorlands are rarer than rainforest, and they host a huge amount of flora and fauna, but also wildlife. Again, I saw two patches when I went up to the North York Moors. In the patches that have been managed, there is a proliferation of curlews, golden plovers and lapwings literally teeming round the moors. In the areas that are deliberately not being managed as a trial, however, there is very little wildlife. The moors are very conducive to wildlife, and I think the statistic is that there are five times as many rare birds in the managed areas as in the unmanaged ones.

The estates in my constituency are Snilesworth, Bransdale and Spaunton. As has been mentioned, they have an important role to play in preventing wildfires, which can be hugely damaging. The Climate Change Committee commented on this issue only this month in a report on climate risk. It highlighted the prospect of increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, stating:

“we can manage habitats actively to improve their resilience, for example through…the removal of…fuel loads that risk wildfire.”

That is what happens when a canopy gets too big. The canopy then burns and burns the peat. What the people who manage the moorlands do is called cool burning, which takes away the canopy without burning the peat. That is absolutely critical. It is carbon-neutral, because the new growth absorbs the carbon that has been emitted, but there is no release of carbon from the peat layer, which is hugely important.

The other point about CO₂, which we are all obviously increasingly concerned about, comes from a report by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust on alternative uses for the moors, which states:

“Peatlands managed for cropland, grassland, forestry (for example afforestation of moorland) or fuel harvesting emit many times more at around eight to 39 tonnes CO2 per hectare per year”

versus 2 to 5 tonnes on moorlands, so it is clear that there are climate change benefits here as well.

On wildlife, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is absolutely right. When I was child, we never saw buzzards. I do not remember ever seeing a buzzard as a child, even though we spent most of our time outdoors. Now, there are a huge number always circling in the sky. Some relevant statistics come from Spaunton Moor and George Winn-Darley, who is the representative of the North York Moors to the Moorland Association. In a single year, there have been 1,552 sightings of birds of prey, including 10 hen harriers, three white-tailed sea eagles, 70 merlins, 193 kestrels, 16 short-eared owls, 163 barn owls, 84 peregrines, 14 marsh harriers, one osprey, 50 red kites, 57 tawny owls and 726 buzzards—I could go on. Extrapolated across the whole moor, that would be 25,000 sightings of those very rare birds. As I mentioned, the number of hen harriers is on the rise.

The hon. Member for Bristol East is absolutely right that we should work together to clamp down on wildlife crime against birds of prey and any kind of crime against wildlife, but the incidence is very low. No incidents at all were reported in 2018-19.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for interrupting, but I must highlight to the hon. Gentleman that there are two more Members who wish to speak, and we are attempting to get to the winding-up speeches at 5.30 pm.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will conclude on this point. It is absolutely right that we should clamp down on any wildlife crime, including against birds of prey. Wild Justice was responsible for some changes to general licences that make it much more difficult to control other types of birds, such as gulls, which have a devastating impact on chicks—grouse chicks, lapwing chicks and curlew chicks. We have to ensure that we take steps carefully, and they must be evidence-based.

UK Shellfish Exports

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We will not accept regulatory alignment. This country voted to become an independent, self-governing country again, and to make its own laws again. We were elected as a Government on a clear manifesto commitment to deliver what people voted for in the referendum, and that is what we have done.

Of course, there have been teething problems in these early stages, as people familiarise themselves with new paperwork—not just businesses, but border control post inspectors in France and in the Netherlands, who are also on quite a steep learning curve. They are getting better, and we are working with them to iron out difficulties: for instance, the French at one point said that everything needed to be in blue ink, but they now accept that that is not correct and is not what is required in law. We are working to iron out those difficulties, working with authorities in France, the Netherlands and Ireland to try to improve these processes, and of course we would be willing to have a discussion with the European Commission about how we might modernise some of the forms they have to make them more user-friendly.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]]

I did not realise that “bollocks” was parliamentary language, Madam Deputy Speaker, but obviously that is for you to decide.

My right hon. Friend is very familiar with the Filey fishing community, and lobster and crab are important markets for them. Food exporters of all types are currently finding it more difficult in instances to export to the EU than to non-EU countries and, as he said in his opening remarks, this seems to be a consistency problem related to a common understanding of the rules. Will he do whatever he can to build an agreement that deals with food and plant exports and resolves these issues as soon as possible?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have focused my comments so far on bivalve molluscs, where the European Union is now proposing an outright ban, which is a change from its former position. We are aware that there have also been some teething issues in other sections of the shellfish industry, notably crabs and lobsters, particularly when they are exported live. There have been improvements: a lot of consignments are now going through the short straits, clearing border control posts, often in no more than 45 minutes, and reaching their destination on time. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the paperwork associated with that could be improved. That would require the EU to engage constructively in such a discussion.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We will not be cutting the budget: we will be cutting the payments that go through the rather dysfunctional legacy basic payment scheme, and we will instead be directing that money into new schemes, including the sustainable farming incentive that farmers will be able to access from 2022.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Hill farmers are hugely important to the landscapes and communities of Thirsk and Malton, particularly in the North York Moors national park. They are very dependent on financial support. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking after their interests and also consider delegating the distribution and administration of moneys direct to the national parks, so they can work directly with their farmers, who understand their landscapes most closely?

[George Eustice]

I do think that there will be opportunities for some of those upland and moorland areas to be able to really benefit from a new policy that is based on payment for the delivery of environmental goods. There have been many opportunities for them to do so alongside their food production. We are also looking at ways to involve local partners in terms of designing schemes that fit a particular geography. That could include the national parks and local nature partnerships.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The Prime Minister made reference yesterday to the importance of those working in the food retail sector, in particular. Later today, the Government will announce jobs defined as key workers, but I can assure him that we fully recognise that over 25% of staff generally working in the food supply chain have children of school age, and that will be reflected when the list is published.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support farmers.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to support farmers.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We have committed to maintaining the budget for our future agriculture policy at the same level as now, but to direct it differently. We are designing our farming reforms with those who work in agriculture and considering resilience issues. During the transition period, farmers will have time to adapt and prepare for the new policy.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Farmers’ and landowners’ ability to protect their crops and their livestock will be seriously compromised unless general licences are issued for protected areas, gulls and traps this spring. Will my right hon. Friend set out what he can do to make sure that that is the case?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to improve air quality.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to improve air quality.

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

Our clean air strategy sets out an ambitious programme of action to reduce air pollution from a wide range of sources. We have also put in place a £3.5 billion plan to tackle roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Our Environment Bill delivers key parts of our world-leading clean air strategy and makes a clear commitment to set a legally binding target to reduce fine particulate matter, as well as enabling local authorities to take more effective action to tackle air pollution in their areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Local authorities are required by law to consider the impacts of development on air quality. Local authorities are best placed to take local planning decisions and should take into account a range of factors, including impacts on air quality, the local economy and traffic flow—so my hon. Friend raises a good point—when carrying out roadwork projects. In terms of the wider picture, we are providing financial and expert advice to local authorities to tackle air quality.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Air quality is seen very much as an urban issue, but even in the bucolic rural constituency of Thirsk and Malton we have our problems, including in Malton town centre due to high levels of standing traffic. What support can my hon. Friend offer to the local authority to resolve this issue?

[Rebecca Pow]

The Environment Bill includes measures to improve air quality that will ensure that local authorities, including in Malton, for which my hon. Friend always speaks up so determinedly, have a clear framework and simple powers to tackle air pollution. The DEFRA and Department for Transport joint air quality unit works with local authorities, underpinned by £572 million in funding, to tackle nitrogen dioxide exceedances, and DEFRA provides grant funding and technical support via a dedicated helpdesk.