Draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 General Committees

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that the draft regulations are a point of agreement between the Government and His Majesty’s official Opposition. Time and again, I have heard from farmers just how difficult their supply chain negotiations can be, and today’s regulations are an important step for the sheep sector in strengthening protections for producers and processors. We know just how much pressure sheep farmers are under, especially those in upland areas, and a lack of certainty about the price and classification that they can expect at the end of the process only makes it far harder to run their businesses.

With the supply chain being so important, I am pleased to say that last year the previous Conservative Government began the process that has culminated in the draft regulations, with the public consultation, which ran between January and March—and, of course, through the passing of the underlying Agriculture Act 2020. It is good to see that much of the learning from the consultation has been implemented in the regulations and that the new Administration have decided to continue with the proposed changes.

The draft regulations will provide not only much needed reassurance to our primary producers, but clarity for our larger abattoirs, setting clear standards for the presentation, measurement and record keeping of carcases. In particular, there is precise guidance on the proper presentation of carcases and a requirement to measure weight to the nearest 100 grams. Standard setting in relation to automated classification is also welcome and should help many abattoirs access such processes with confidence, thus improving their options for growth.

It is also good to see that, primarily, the draft regulations will impact larger facilities of more than 2,000 processed animals a year, protecting struggling smaller abattoirs from the burdens of increased regulation. Only a few weeks ago, we discussed in detail the challenges facing smaller abattoirs, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Government—or to hold them to account —on that issue, as much work remains to be done to ensure rigorous standards without overburdening smaller businesses. We will support the Government on the regulations.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the more than 104,000 signatories to the petition.

Let me be absolutely clear with the many petitioners and other interested parties watching this debate: it is not my view that grouse shooting should be banned. I hope that over the course of my remarks it will become clear why that is my view and, indeed, the view of the Conservative party.

We must begin by recognising that grouse moorland is not a natural habitat. Just as the charm of the British countryside is managed by farmers, grouse moorland is managed by gamekeepers, farmers, estates and shooting syndicates that use it. If grouse shooting were banned, the moorland would not be as it is today. I worked as a rural practice surveyor before entering this place, and I advised and was involved in many moorland restoration projects—as well as spending many a Saturday when I was a young lad beating on grouse moors to earn a small wage—so I know the economic, social, environmental and ecological importance of grouse shooting to our uplands.

Banning grouse shooting would have significant ramifications. Across the UK, 1.8 million hectares of moorland are specifically used for grouse shooting, and they account for about 75% of the world’s supply of this remarkable habitat. Moorland is, in effect, unique to these islands, and we should be proud and protective of it. Red grouse, the species most commonly used in shooting, is also unique to these islands.

It is worth pausing to note that grouse shooting does not involve the specific rearing and release of birds. Grouse shoots use wild populations of birds that are carefully managed to create the numbers needed to prevent endangerment. The fact that grouse management straddles the line between true animal husbandry and wild hunting is precisely why the industry has such ecological and environmental benefits. The activity drives economic incentives to invest in the upkeep of grouse populations, manage their habitat for other species and provide significant environmental benefits.

Just as the careful management of heather benefits grouse, so it benefits other species, such as lapwing, curlew, golden plover and the rare merlin, as many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out. Such protected species rely on good, healthy heather for food and shelter, and without proper management, their numbers would decline.

Much of our moorland is also peatland, and grouse moor management schemes have restored approximately 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the past 20 years. Colleagues may know that I have been a big champion of peatland to store and sequester carbon, so efforts to restore it are very welcome. Peat in the UK stores 26 times as much carbon as UK forests, yet it regenerates naturally by only 1 mm a year in depth, making its protection and proper management vital to reducing carbon emissions. Through its management of grouse moors, grouse shooting can only contribute towards the success of that, including its economic benefits.

It is right that I pause here to discuss the burning of heather, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and other Members. The concerns of proponents of a ban on burning may be understandable, but they fail to consider the full picture and, dare I say it, are sometimes completely ill-informed. Their surface-level analysis ignores the fact that moorland is a managed landscape and must continue to be managed if we want it to remain in the enhanced habitat state that we see it in today.

[Olivia Blake]

Can the hon. Member remind me which Government brought in a partial ban on peatland burning?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to cover for the shadow Secretary of State, who is speaking to farmers at the 140th Lincolnshire Agricultural Show. Having visited many such shows myself, including North Sheep 2025 and Cereals 2025 just last week, may I say how disappointed I am by the Secretary of State’s lack of attendance at these crucial farming events?

At a time when our farmers are going through some of the most extraordinary pressures in a generation, we have now learned that this Government have chosen to slash the farming budget. To make matters worse, Ministers have spent the past week trying to sell cuts of more than £100 million a year in real terms as a historic deal for farmers. If the Secretary of State has secured such a historic deal for his Department, where does DEFRA rank compared with others in terms of cuts in the spending review?

[Steve Reed]

First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I attended the Royal Cornwall Show with him just a few days ago. I am surprised he has forgotten that, because we sat together in the same tent and enjoyed a very pleasant lunch. I do not know what is wrong with his memory, but anyway.

The funding for ELM schemes paid to farmers will increase from £800 million in the last year of the Tory Government to £2 billion by 2028-29—that is a 150% increase under Labour compared with what the Tories were paying. No wonder the hon. Gentleman is so angry.

[Robbie Moore]

It is a shame that the Secretary of State did not do any media at the Royal Cornwall Show and pulled out of speaking events. I can tell him that DEFRA is ranked the third biggest loser of any Government Department in the spending review, and that is his failure. In reality, we are now looking at cuts to the farming budget of about 20% in real terms over the next three years, at a time when farmers need more support and certainty than ever. It gets worse: we now hear that the Government have issued further statutory guidance on farming rules for water, with more to follow, effectively aiming to ban—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have to try to get the other shadow Minister in. You went too low down the Order Paper—this is topical questions, not a full statement. I hope you are about to finish.

[Robbie Moore]

This is effectively going to ban the spraying of organic manures in the coming months. Is the Secretary of State categorically ruling that out?

[Steve Reed]

I am happy to send the shadow Minister the list of media coverage I got from the Royal Cornwall Show. He does not seem to be any better at googling than remembering who he sat down with at lunch. I am delighted that the spending review was welcomed by the environmental NGOs and the National Farmers Union as it funds activities that include the ones he referred to. It seems that everyone is delighted with the review apart from him.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing a really important debate. There is no better champion on this issue in Parliament. He is bringing together many all-party parliamentary groups to specifically tackle and bring to the Minister’s attention the important issue of flooding and is setting up his own flood caucus, not only among parliamentary colleagues, but prominently within the county of Norfolk—which is invaluable. My hon. Friend mentioned the 22 villages that have been flooded in his constituency, and all of us have referenced our own impacted communities, so I know just how important this issue is.

I want to address some of my remarks by echoing some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, because flooding devastates communities, families and the health and wellbeing of individuals who experience the trauma of flooding. It devastates our farmers and our economy at all levels and it represents a threat to life. What is worse, for some it is not a one-off event but a frequent occurrence. Far too many people are impacted. I am proud to say that the previous Government took robust action on flooding. Since 2010, more than 600,000 properties and 900,000 acres of farmland have been better protected by Government-backed schemes. In 2020, the Government announced a doubling of the flood defences budget, including £100 million for the frequently flooded allowance.

While those statistics represent vital progress, we must recognise, as has been indicated, that there is always much more to do. I will just canter through some of the points that have been made, because it is quite right that when dealing with water and with flooding, a catchment approach is always the focus. That deals with not only our farmers, but with our housing developers and our infrastructure providers. It starts right at the top, upstream, dealing with our moorland restoration projects and ensuring that our farmers have the funding to deal with environmental mitigation. That is why it is deeply frustrating that the Government have stopped sustainable farming incentive applications. While there is an acknowledgment that they have opened it up to an additional 303,000 applications on the back of our calls, it is nevertheless worrying to many of our farming community. That is exacerbated by issues such as the family farm tax, which is creating uncertainty in our agricultural sector.

The role of developers has been mentioned by all in this room and I agree that water companies need to be statutory consultees as part of that process. I also agree that planning considerations such as SuDS ponds and the design of houses—as has been illustrated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Julie Minns)—need to be taken into account when new developments are built. Financial contributions must be considered too, because far too often flood alleviation schemes are not established at speed to deal with the amount of development that is coming down the line. That impacts not only settlements further downstream, but agricultural businesses. Therefore, when looking at flood alleviation schemes, it is right that those schemes are attractive enough for a landowner to enter into such an arrangement, and therefore the remuneration that is associated with those flood alleviation schemes needs to be properly addressed.

The Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and land managers were also discussed. We very strongly advocate a loosening up of the relationship between the Environment Agency, our IDBs, who do a fantastic job recognised by many in this room, and the land managers—who sometimes just want to get on and clean the ditches, but are unfortunately penalised for doing so at the moment. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the advice from officials in the Environment Agency is “do not dredge” and “do not remove that vegetation from those EA-managed assets”. I would encourage the Minister to push back on that advice and say that dredging is an option further downstream and that removing vegetation from EA assets should be a consideration.

I also address the issue of insurance, because that is vitally important, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Flood Re is incredibly important if we are able to provide reassurance for those developments that have been built after the kick-in date. We would advocate the Government going stronger and faster with the recommendations that have been made in this debate.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Could I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up?

Small Abattoirs

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this incredibly important debate. As has been indicated in all the contributions, we realise that small abattoirs are a vital part of our food supply chain and, therefore, of our national food security.

The benefits of encouraging a diverse range of abattoirs of all sizes are incredibly important not only for food supply but for supporting the rural economy. Farming businesses rely on them. If they are not there, opportunities for our farmers, our rural economy and our consumers are significantly reduced.

Small abattoirs bring greater market competition, helping our farmers to secure the best price for their produce. They often provide specialist services, such as slaughter for horned cattle or outdoor pigs, which is not always offered by larger establishments, as we have heard. We do not always hear in this House about how the opportunities provided by small abattoirs are incredibly important for many in our farming community. Private kill services, which farmers looking to diversify increasingly rely on, are also a speciality of our smaller abattoirs.

With regard to animal welfare, smaller abattoirs are well suited to ensuring that each animal receives humane treatment. Reduced travel distances mean that animals arrive less stressed than they would after a longer journey. Those shorter travel distances also cut down on haulage costs and emissions in our meat sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) indicated in his intervention.

In rural communities across the country, small abattoirs ensure that more business is done locally by providing jobs and a local supply of produce for businesses further down the supply chain. However, we have unfortunately seen a decline in small and medium-sized abattoirs across the country, with areas such as northern Scotland, northern England and the south-east in particular experiencing a short supply of small abattoirs. A survey of farm businesses recently showed that 51% of respondents had to find new abattoirs after the closure of their original provider. Between 2018 and 2022, smaller red meat abattoirs declined by around 25% and smaller poultry abattoirs declined by around 40%.

A survey undertaken by National Craft Butchers indicated that 59% of abattoirs processing less than 1,000 livestock units a year would close within two to five years without any Government intervention. In 2023, that analysis was unfortunately on track. The previous Government decided to act on that by introducing the smaller abattoir fund. However, the costs to our smaller abattoirs have significantly increased. As has been mentioned, energy costs are often much higher for smaller abattoirs. The employer national insurance increase, the minimum wage increase and the challenges around skills are increasing those challenges.

The previous Government understood the problem and delivered the £4 million smaller abattoir fund, with 42% of eligible businesses applying. It delivered critical investment into the sector, making it more productive and improving produce quality and animal welfare standards. I urge the Government to continue rolling out that fund, which provided funds from £4,000 to up to £60,000. That was increased from an intervention rate of 40% to 50%, with the upper limit increasing to £75,000 to cover off some of the challenges.

Specific issues were picked up by colleagues in their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) mentioned the challenges in the south-east. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) had specific challenges associated with their abattoir in Henfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs met the chief executive of Horsham district council and managed to secure a £300,000 grant to help keep the abattoir open. That illustrates the nature of the challenge. The changes to employer’s national insurance have been exacerbated by the additional costs associated with energy and running a small abattoir, so sometimes the Government need to intervene and assist.

We also need to get to a position of fairness throughout the whole of the supply chain, as was rightly suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). Farmers want fairness, not favours. We must get to a position where there is fairness in the supply chain. Government intervention sometimes helps the small abattoirs that provide a much better level of service to our rural economy, rather than farmers having to rely on larger abattoirs. Sometimes intervention helps, so I reiterate the calls on the Government to roll out the smaller abattoir fund again.

We also delivered the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export of live animals for slaughter. Not only did that end an often inhumane practice, but it provided further reassurance for the sector. The first thing that the Government could do is unequivocally recognise the importance of smaller abattoirs, primarily focusing on the supply chain. The Government should ensure that the supply chain—and abattoirs—are encompassed within their food strategy. Part of the review should include looking closely not only at a second round of the smaller abattoir fund, but at whether there are circumstances in which smaller abattoirs do not need the additional costs of energy.

What plans does the Minister have for regulatory reform in the abattoir sector? At a time when the Government are advocating for greater alignment with Europe, does he recognise that many of the EU directives still in force in this country did great damage to our smaller abattoirs? There is also growing concern about the financial burden placed on our smaller abattoirs by the Food Standards Agency, to which Members have referred. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that smaller abattoirs are not disproportionately affected by the rise in inspection costs? More broadly, what is he doing to ensure that the FSA delivers value for money?

The debate has rightly acknowledged the FSA’s rollout of increased charges. The uplift from March 2025, which impacts our smaller abattoirs, will have a direct impact in this financial year and the next. The Opposition agree with the National Farmers Union that the further pressure on the small and medium-sized abattoirs that are struggling with additional costs and regulatory burdens has been exacerbated by the implications of the FSA’s additional charging.

Furthermore, we want clarity from the Government about what they intend to do on the 5% rule, which would significantly reduce the regulatory burden for the smallest abattoirs. As we know, if such a rule was in place it would enable smaller abattoirs to slaughter up to 5% of the total national throughput without triggering a full veterinary presence and therefore without the additional costs associated with their going above 1,000 units and having veterinary officers present. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s intentions on the 5% rule?

The Government must also consider the benefits to small abattoirs of future food labelling reviews. Will the Minister tell us the Government’s intentions? Better consumer awareness through food labelling would help smaller abattoirs to sell their produce as more humane, more local and better placed for the consumer. I would appreciate it if he outlined the Government’s intentions in that regard.

To summarise, our rural economy has faced additional pressures not just through the family farm tax and the removal of the SFI but through the dramatic reduction in de-linked payments to £7,200. It is being further hit by the dramatic reduction in small abattoirs and consequently the reduced ability to slaughter produce at a local facility. I call on the Government not only to roll out additional incentives nationally through the smaller abattoir fund but to take on board the many contributions that have been made in the debate, so they can ensure that our farmers and our rural economy continue to thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

On the 80th anniversary of VE Day, I thank those who fought for our and Europe’s freedom and, indeed, those who worked our land and kept our nation fed.

Our peatlands store 26 times more carbon than forests. They improve water quality and protect communities up and down the UK from flooding. The Nature Minister rightly called peatlands our “country’s Amazon rainforest” and launched a consultation to protect them. She is right, because once they have been destroyed, they can never be replaced. At the very same time, the Energy Secretary plans to rip up 2,000 hectares of protected peatland on historic land in West Yorkshire for a vast wind farm development, opening up communities to flooding and destroying the peatlands that Labour says it wants to protect. How can the Government claim to be protecting our irreplaceable peatlands when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is actively considering destroying one of our most environmentally important landscapes in the country?

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s ability to weave a question for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero into a question on flooding. He will have heard from the Nature Minister how important peatlands are and how essential they are for this country and heard our commitment to protecting them.

Fly-tipping: West Midlands

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing forward this really timely and important debate. As she rightly and eloquently illustrated, fly-tipping is an absolute crime. It blights our landscape, risks pollution and disease, and costs thousands of pounds to clear up. It is shocking that many people actively choose to dump their waste, causing huge cost. That is not only to the taxpayer for clearance but also the detrimental impact on the many local communities where not only fly-tipping but littering takes place.

What a timely day to bring forward this debate, as many of our litter pickers have been getting out there as part of the Great British spring clean. I would therefore like to comment on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his work with Keeping Duns Blooming Marvellous. He has been not only advocating on their behalf but getting out with many other litter pickers across his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills commented on Walsall Wood Wombles and many others who she has been out helping in her constituency. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) was also out litter picking this weekend. I am surprised he managed to get back to Westminster given the huge amount of rubbish that is on the streets of Birmingham this week, but it is noted that he was out litter picking on Sunday.

I should like to pick up on the points made on litter picking before moving on to the bigger challenges that are faced across the west Midlands. It is right to make the point that our parish councils, which are at the grassroots of facing these challenges, do need extra support to try to deal with some of the litter waste that exists within their communities. I want put on the record my thanks to the Ilkley litter pickers, who meet every month. I have been lucky enough to go out litter picking with them across Ilkley and up at The Cow and Calf regularly, helping them. They have vast numbers—about 60 people now—regularly turning up on a Sunday, when they meet, and it is incredible to see.

The situation in the west midlands is absolutely shocking, and it is no wonder that fly-tipping is getting considerably worse as a result, but the diagnosis of Labour mismanagement is no shock at all to me, because Labour-run Bradford council outrageously closed not only Golden Butts household waste recycling centre in Ilkley but Sugden End household waste recycling centre up in the Worth valley in my constituency early last year, despite massive protests by local people and a petition, which I organised, receiving more than 9,000 signatures. And guess what? In Craven, Ilkley, Worth Valley and Keighley West wards, the wards closest to the shut tips, we have seen fly-tipping increase as a result in the following year. By contrast, for those wards that are nearest the tip that remains open in the centre of Keighley—despite Labour-run Bradford council’s wanting to close it in 2023—fly-tipping reports are fewer.

Quite simply, Labour local authorities cannot see the wood for the trees. They cut waste services supposedly to save money, but they do not take account of the vast increases in fly-tipping that there will be as a result, and who has to pick up the cost for that? The taxpayer. Waste is far more expensive to remove once it is fly-tipped. It would be more properly disposed of at a proper waste facility. Just because Labour has removed waste services does not mean that waste will stop piling up. That is exactly what we are seeing in Birmingham, because Birmingham city council is failing to get to grips with the huge challenges over the last month, and who is being impacted by that? The residents, the council tax payers, on the back of their council taxes dramatically increasing in recent years.

[John Lamont]

I will make the same point to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister as I made to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), about the tactics that the Unite trade unionists are using: the blockade of the depots to prevent the refuse trucks from leaving, and the slow walking in front of the lorries to prevent the bin workers from getting out to collect the rubbish. The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield was a bit reluctant to call that out. Will the shadow Minister join me in saying that that type of action is completely unacceptable and should not be allowed in this day and age?

[Robbie Moore]

It absolutely is action that needs to be condemned. Why? Because those who are being impacted are the hard-working residents of Birmingham. They are dutifully paying their council tax—despite its having increased as a result of Labour’s mismanagement of the council—yet they are expected to be taking their waste to an allocated disposal site, either a site that has been allocated by the council to dispose of their waste or a waste wagon; but wagons needing to get out of the depot are being held up by those who are striking, yet the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield will not actively and openly come out and condemn their behaviour, which is having a negative impact not only on his constituents but the residents across Birmingham more widely. Does he want to intervene? I will let him use this opportunity to condemn their actions right now if he chooses.

[Laurence Turner]

I have made my comments. The hon. Member is acting irresponsibly, because we are in discussions—I mean “we” in the sense that the council, which I am not a member of, and the union are in discussions. The most important thing is making sure that the strike ends, and that there is no new equal pay liability. Let us not forget that the first equal pay liability in Birmingham arose under Conservative leadership of the council, with huge costs to my residents. The most important thing is that we get a resolution. The hon. Member can grandstand all he likes; it does not bring the dispute one inch closer to being finalised. I am conscious that this is a long intervention. I commented on the issue over the weekend; those comments stand on the record.

[Robbie Moore]

I note again that the hon. Member has not condemned the actions, yet who is being penalised but the residents of Birmingham as waste piles up outside their houses? The BBC was reporting on that very action last night. It reported not only on the action being taken by Unite trade unionists, but on the residents who are being impacted. It reported on residents who could not even get down their street, blockaded in their own homes, because of piles of rubbish outside that are causing a huge nuisance: a huge impact with the smell and a huge impact on their livelihood and way of life. That is completely unacceptable.

[Wendy Morton]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. It was obvious last week in the Chamber that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), just washed his hands and passed it back to Birmingham. I come back to the same point: does my hon. Friend agree that the people who are suffering are the residents of Birmingham and those in the surrounding areas? What is wrong with standing up and saying, “Come on, folks, let’s get together and sort this out”? It is the 21st century and we have rubbish on the streets of our second-biggest city.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If you are a resident in Birmingham paying your council tax, you want action. You do not want talks after talks, discussions after discussions. Residents have been impacted for too long—a month in certain circumstances. I was in Birmingham two weekends ago, and the level of rubbish on the streets was completely unacceptable in Britain’s second-largest city, yet what is the Minister doing about it? What is the Minister doing to hold Labour-run Birmingham to account? What action are the Government going to take, other than just passing the buck down the line to Labour-run Birmingham city council to sort it out?

Other local authorities are impacted, too. I note that Lichfield district council has offered its waste services to help Birmingham tackle the mountain of waste. That is highly commendable, but what is the impact on Lichfield ratepayers? Is that what they want from their council tax payments? What is the Minister doing to ensure that the other local authorities that neighbour Birmingham will be compensated for providing assistance? The net increase in undealt-with waste, as a result of Labour-run Birmingham city council, is currently running at an estimated 1,000 tonnes per week. That is enough to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool with rubbish every two weeks. How will Birmingham residents not be tempted to fly-tip in Birmingham, and further afield in places on the periphery that are likely to be impacted such as Walsall, when they have literally run out of pavement space to put their rubbish on? It is hardly their fault. They pay their council tax, yet the Labour council cannot be bothered to get around the table properly and sort the issue out.

There is also the impact on local investment. Under Andy Street, Birmingham and the wider west midlands area saw a huge amount of inward private investment to the benefit of many residents, yet the level of nuisance the situation is causing—not only in Birmingham, but in the wider area—makes matters significantly worse.

[Laurence Turner]

I must say, listening to this, that I feel there is a real rewriting of history going on. Under the leadership of the Conservatives, the sharpest central Government cuts on any local authority in England were inflicted on Birmingham. Will the hon. Gentleman apologise for his party’s role in that?

[Robbie Moore]

Dare I say it, but the mismanagement under the Labour administration in Birmingham is the absolute result of what residents are now being faced with—an increase in council tax across Birmingham and a significantly negative impact on the current level of service, with their rubbish not being collected.

I fear that the worst is yet to come for the people of Birmingham. We have already had reports of rat superhighways under streets—tens of millions of rats scurrying between rubbish piles and commuting through sewers. But what happens when the rubbish is finally removed, when there are no rubbish bags on the streets and the food in the rubbish has been removed? We will see starved rats running around the sewers looking elsewhere to find food. I fear for the residents whose homes may be impacted, and the additional cost that will be put on Birmingham city council to deal with vermin on the streets, not just clearing the waste.

The terrible lesson from this saga is obvious: Labour’s mismanagement of Birmingham has left residents in the lurch, with literally a mountain of rubbish on their doorsteps, just one year after the budget-busting council tax rises—nearly 20% since 2023. From council tax to local services, the facts show that Conservative councils deliver more for less. In Labour-run Birmingham, they do not appear to be delivering anything. I want to come on to the points that have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to do with the initiatives that Conservative-led Walsall council are bringing out, such as the environmental crime scene project, which seems a great idea—treating every fly-tipping scene as a crime scene and taking a robust approach. We have seen reports drop from 40 reports a day to five. That is 70% of fly-tipping removed. A Conservative council taking a robust approach gets the problem solved—delivering a better result for the taxpayer. That is the result of best practice.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we delivered £2.2 million to councils struggling to tackle fly-tipping, helping them get ahead of the problem. We have seen an increase in spot fines, a fly-tipping grant scheme and a better, more collaborative approach. I fear for rural councils and our farmers, who are most impacted and on the periphery of those urban environments—as has been picked up in this debate. So why on earth did the Government remove the over £100 million rural service delivery grant, which was a grant specifically aimed at helping those rural councils deliver services? Undoubtedly, those services are much costlier and harder to deliver in a rural environment.

So far, this Labour Administration have only committed to revising statutory guidelines in the Crime and Policing Bill. It shows a startling lack of awareness that when waste in Birmingham is piling up at a rate of one bin bag every 4.5 seconds, the best that this Government can offer are some revised guidelines and advocating further talking shops in Birmingham. I ask the Minister, what on earth is he doing? What on earth is this Labour Government doing to get to grips with the problems in Birmingham? While there is nothing wrong with sharing and enforcing best practice, it is not the fly-tipping revolution we need. It is simple: as we have seen in Labour-run Bradford council and now in Labour-run Birmingham, “Vote Labour and you get trash.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very pleased to hear it. It sounds like there was one prosecution, which is better than none.

We are under no illusion about the scale of the pressures that local authorities are facing. We all know how much pressure they are under, and it impacts the services that they can provide to local people. The 2025-26 local government finance settlement will provide over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above local council tax. The majority of funding in the local government finance settlement is un-ringfenced, recognising that local leaders are best placed to identify local priorities. It will be a choice for local authorities, and they will make their choices.

The situation in Birmingham has been raised. I recognise the misery and disruption it is causing to residents and hear what Opposition Members have said. It is in the interests of all parties and, most importantly, of the residents of Birmingham and the surrounding areas, that this industrial action is brought to a close as soon as possible. We encourage all parties to redouble their efforts to find a resolution. We believe that it is right that the response continues to be locally led, as is usual in the case of council-run services such as rubbish collections.

Birmingham city council declared a major incident on Monday 31 March, which means that it can increase its street-cleaning operation and fly-tipping removal by bringing in extra vehicles and crews. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government updated the House on Monday 7 April on how the situation is being managed following that declaration. She, the Minister for Local Government and MHCLG officials are monitoring the situation closely. Birmingham city council continues to lead the response, as is appropriate, but cross-Government mechanisms have been activated to ensure a co-ordinated response, with MHCLG in the lead and DEFRA supporting.

The backlog of waste must be dealt with swiftly to address public health concerns. The council began its work to collect the hazardous accumulation of waste over the weekend, and the Government stand ready to play their part in supporting the council in that work.

[Robbie Moore]

How bad does it need to get for the residents of Birmingham before the Government step in and take stronger action?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We absolutely recognise the gravity of the situation, but we believe that the best thing to do is to work with people locally to try to get a solution. It is a complicated situation, as has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, and I think we had better concentrate on trying to get a solution than scoring political points.

Thames Water: Government Support

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this really important debate. It was good to listen to all the contributions. As we all know, water is vital and we use it every single day, so it is deeply concerning that we have such great challenges in our water industry, particularly those that have been highlighted with Thames Water.

Under the last Government, we uncovered the true extent of the issues with our water system by increasing the monitoring of storm overflows, which no political party or Administration had previously attempted. Back in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored, but when we left office, 100% were monitored. That gave the Government and our regulators a proper and true understanding of the way in which those storm overflows were being used by our water companies.

[John Lamont]

I pay tribute to all the work that my hon. Friend did as a Minister. He has highlighted the percentage of overflows that are now being monitored in England. I am sure he is aware of research by Surfers Against Sewage confirming that 100% of storm overflows in England are now being monitored. In Scotland, the figure is only 4%. Does that not show the huge difference between what is happening here in England, which is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, and what is happening in Scotland, which is far, far worse?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, that is the point: for any Government, regardless of political colour or make-up, to deal with the challenge, they need to understand the true extent of what they are dealing with.

It is frustrating that north of the border only 4% of storm overflows are being monitored. In reference to what is happening with Scottish Water, and to what the devolved Administration north of the border are doing in the Scottish Parliament to tackle challenges of pollution, how can any proper strategy be put in place with no reference point? That is why it is important to get to the 100% level of monitoring that we now have in England, which resulted in the last Administration being able to roll out the plan for water, which was about stronger regulation, tougher enforcement and more investment.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the Thames tideway, which has 25 km of underground capacity that has now been extended from Acton to Abbey Mills. A £5 billion investment has been put into the project, which is now fully operational, having opened in February; I was lucky enough to visit and to go down into it before it was opened. The great thing about the project is that it is now draining about 34 of the most polluting combined sewer overflows in the Thames area, which will help to improve the quality of the water in the Thames.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam rightly raised the concerns about increasing water bills, the lack of trust in Thames Water and the poor level of service that his constituents are experiencing. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) picked up on the same issues and referred to the meeting that I had with her and with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in the short period for which I was lucky enough to be a Minister in the Department, about the challenges with the Teddington project. I urge the Minister to address those concerns, because challenges arise when there is no proper environmental impact assessment. Concern about the project is rightly being raised—it was certainly a concern that I had—so I urge the Minister to continue to put pressure on Thames Water.

The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) rightly raised the concerns of constituents on Clarence Avenue and in Brixton, relating to water shortages resulting from Thames Water not carrying out its duty to the level of quality that her constituents expect. She also raised concerns about the bill increases of approximately 30% or 31% for some of her constituents.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the statutory duties that a water company is bound to meet and referred to the poor satisfaction levels that Thames Water is delivering. The hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) rightly raised the challenges that his constituents are experiencing with flooding, and Thames Water’s refusal to take responsibility. Finally, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned challenges relating to Thames Water’s bill increases and the poor service that his constituents experience.

Thames Water is probably the most distressing example of our water system going wrong. Bills are rising by about 33% this year, but unfortunately the Government have failed to take serious action and consumers are paying for it. That comes in addition to the pressures of the cost of living, council tax rises and so on. Rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water shareholders have simply wrung the business dry of capital, failed to invest to expand its supply, and failed to invest to clean up sewage spills. Thames Water’s exceptionally poor level of service deliverability has already been mentioned.

The last Administration took steps to address the challenges that constituents and residents face not only in the Thames Water area, but across England. We blocked bosses’ bonuses for water company executives, we ensured that dividends had to be linked specifically to environmental performance and we introduced unlimited civil fines by removing the £250,000 cap. More power was awarded to Ofwat so that it could impose levies on water companies in the circumstances. In August last year, Thames Water was fined £104 million for its failure to avoid sewage overflows. In other instances Thames Water was put under a cash lock-up, which prevents any dividends from being paid out without Ofwat’s approval.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

How much of the fine that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has Thames Water actually paid? How was it allowed to pay out all these dividends in previous years, given the measures that he is setting out? I genuinely cannot understand how that was allowed to continue for so long.

[Robbie Moore]

That brings me nicely to my next point, which is the strength of the regulator. Ofwat has the powers to link dividends to environmental performance —a measure that was awarded to Ofwat—and to ban bosses’ bonuses for executives, but those powers are there should Ofwat wish to use them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that Ofwat is using the powers that it has been awarded, and to ensure that it is being robust in its actions as the regulator? Many hon. Members have rightly raised concerns that Ofwat has not been robust enough.

Much has been said in this debate about nationalising our water industry and particularly Thames Water, but it is false to assume that a struggling private company will cease to struggle purely because it changes hands. Indebtedness does not go away because a company is nationalised—not without a taxpayer-funded bailout, which would mean redress for the failures of Thames Water executives coming out of the pockets of working people. I mention again the example of Scottish Water, north of the border. There have been myriad mistakes at Thames Water, but it is the responsibility of the independent regulator, Ofwat, to right those wrongs and use the powers that have been awarded to it.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I have to ask the hon. Member why he is so against the idea of nationalising water. I am sure he agrees that the whole idea of privatisation is that there is some sort of competition, but there cannot be competition with water, and therefore we cannot guarantee a good service. We are seeing that at the moment, and we saw it under the Conservative Government for a number of years. Does he understand why privatisation cannot really work in this instance?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I simply refer to the fact that since privatisation about £250 billion of private investment has been put into our water companies, not only to improve infrastructure but to help with service delivery—£250 billion that would otherwise have had to come from the taxpayer.

My second point is that the system should work if the regulator is being robust enough. The point that I come back to is that there is a clear argument that the regulator, Ofwat, has not been sufficiently utilising the powers awarded to it by the Government, and therefore it is right that the Government hold it to account to make it as robust as possible. North of the border in Scotland, with Scottish Water, only 4% of storm overflows are even being monitored, and the service and delivery that Scottish residents are facing is in some cases far worse than what we are experiencing from Thames Water. Simply having a nationalisation strategy does not demonstrate better roll-out and service delivery for customers.

There have been myriad mistakes at Thames Water, but it is the responsibility of the independent regulator, Ofwat, to right those wrongs.

[Charlie Maynard]

Could the hon. Member elaborate a little bit on that £250 billion number and where it comes from?

[Robbie Moore]

It is a figure that has been referenced since nationalisation initially took place, and has been well recognised as the amount of money that has been invested into our water companies by the private sector, for the benefit not only of Thames Water but of all the water companies across England.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that Ofwat is utilising the powers awarded to it, and does she have confidence in Ofwat being able to exercise its function? If not, what is the Minister doing about it? Furthermore, the Government need to take action to further protect consumers from the Thames Water fallout. The court settlement that Thames Water secured in February is designed to give everyone involved time to come to a sustainable plan, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us today that her efforts are firmly going towards ensuring that the plan protects consumers.

Finally, I would like to talk about the broader reforms and support that we can offer our water industry. As I and others have rightly said throughout this debate, our water industry is crying out for further investment. We need to think further about how to utilise the opportunities for the water sector across the country. To that end, what consideration is the Minister giving to providing more opportunities for individuals and organisations outside of major water companies to influence improving the water sector, and has she considered the untapped potential to increase water supply and capacity to the thousands of people who are utilising water, and the hundreds of landowners out there who, with the right financial and planning incentives, may choose to further invest in the water industry? That may be an avenue that the Minister may wish to explore.

I again thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for securing this important debate.

Waste Incinerators

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate, in which we have heard incredibly powerful views from all hon. Members who have participated.

Incineration is a strongly felt issue for many people across the country. I have my own strong feelings on the issue. I am familiar with it from my constituency, where we have staunchly campaigned against the Aire valley incinerator, which is due to be constructed, at some stage, on the outskirts of Keighley. It is not yet built, but it was given the green light by Labour-run Bradford council and the Environment Agency some years ago. I put on record the staunch work that the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign group has done for a number of years, working with me and many residents to campaign strongly against the Aire valley incinerator. My view remains as it has been since I was first elected to this place: the Aire valley incinerator should not be built. Similar opinions have been expressed by many hon. Members in this House—although, dare I say, not by the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be staunchly warm to incineration. All other hon. Members have staunchly expressed their views against.

We heard from the hon. Member for Derby South about the Sinfin incinerator, which he has campaigned long and hard to oppose; from the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who is staunchly against the Corby incinerator; from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), campaigning against the Swadlincote incinerator; from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns); from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), no longer in his place, who is campaigning against the Edmonton incinerator; from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), who is against the Portland incinerator; and from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who raised his concerns about incineration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke against two incinerators in his constituency, Warboys and Envar. He rightly raised concerns that despite him making valid challenges on behalf of his constituents, not only to the Secretary of State but to Ministers, they have not even had the decency to come back to him. I can only urge the Minister to take those concerns to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and hope that a response is received to the planning challenges that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) shared his experiences of a live incinerator in his constituency, giving us the warnings that we all need as we continue our campaigns against incineration in our own constituencies. He was right to highlight the challenges with not only the feedstocks going into that incinerator but the wider problems associated with it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) has campaigned consistently against the Wisbech incinerator. The applicants seemingly decided to get around their application being determined by the local planning authority by making the scheme so big that it would cover six different counties, meaning that a national strategic decision had to be made. He rightly raised concerns around capacity, which as he said already exists in the system. He also raised the huge challenge that, by the time a planning application has been approved for incinerators, technology and the feedstocks that are being incinerated have changed dramatically. This happens even in the case of the incinerator in the Aire valley in my constituency, which dates back to 2015. He is therefore quite right to advocate for the Government to look at that.

Members have consistently raised wider concerns to do with planning applications that are in the pipeline—at the local planning authority or the environment agency—relating to noise, smell and odour, insect infestations and topography. In my constituency, Bradford council, a Labour-controlled local authority, approved a planning application for an incinerator to be built at the bottom of a valley that, when temperature and cloud inversions and the significantly low stack height are taken into account, would cause emissions to get trapped in the cloud and have a detrimental effect on those residents who are higher up on either side of the valley. That is a challenge that we have consistently put to not only Bradford council but the environment agency.

Other concerns to do with consultation processes that have been raised include the lifespan of an incinerator, the decommissioning process once that comes to an end, challenges with the number of job that will be created as a result of a positive incinerator being approved, and the failure of an incinerator to meet the initial expectations around electrical efficiency that are provided when an application is considered. We have also heard challenges around section 106 moneys coming, challenges associated if schools, nurseries and residents are in close proximity to an incinerator, and challenges relating to highways.

Prior to the general election, the last Government rightly paused new incineration licences due to concerns around there already being capacity in the system and oversupply being prevalent. That moratorium expired during the election, and has not been renewed by the new Labour Administration. The end goal of our waste system must be to reduce the volume of residual waste as much as possible. That means absolute focus on reducing, reusing and recycling, but we must also be realistic in recognising that there will always be waste that must be disposed of. While the Conservatives pledged to stop all new incinerators for good and double down on efforts to reduce waste in the first place, Labour has instead attempted to manage the issue of incineration.

In new regulations announced late last year, the Government said that incineration plants would be granted licences only if they can demonstrate that they are reducing landfill. That is a rather low threshold, as almost any waste heading to an incinerator would otherwise be landfilled. More importantly, that criterion misses the key point that methane emissions from landfill will simply be replaced with carbon emissions from waste incineration. In fact, greenhouse gases from incinerators are more intense, as landfill releases its carbon much more slowly than incineration plants. I fear that this landfill criterion is merely an attempt by this Government to give a veneer of environmentally friendly credibility to a policy that actually represents a failure to tackle the broader waste challenge.

Another requirement is that new plants be carbon capture-ready, but one wonders how the Government will assess that criterion when carbon capture technology is still in its infancy and remains unproven. This is not the basis for sensible, long-term policy. Incineration is the dirtiest form of electricity generation in the country, and has a huge impact on local air pollution, as has been raised by many Members across this House when challenging decisions that have been made by their local planning authority or the environmental operational licence that is then awarded by the Environment Agency. They are rightly advocating, on behalf of their constituents, that such decisions should not go ahead as planned.

At the same time, Labour has claimed that it has introduced tough new rules to clean up incineration and is considering introducing a carbon tax on councils that incinerate. That reveals a gaping hole in the Government’s thinking. I ask the Minister: will the Government’s changes to licensing be effective in reducing pollution? If so, why tax cash-strapped councils—or does the tax reveal that the Government expect their licensing policy to fail and are hoping to deter the use of incinerators as a result? Incinerators are dirty and as a result should be taxed as we tax landfill, but clearly a long-term strategy should be adopted to phase out incineration. Why will the Government not commit to that vision?

In its announcement on the new rules, DEFRA explained that the need for new incinerators was small, as waste capacity is now almost sufficient for UK demand. In that case, why will the Government not reassure the thousands of campaigners across the country—many Members on both sides of the House have referenced many who have worked alongside them and I also mentioned the Aire Valley Against Incineration group in my own constituency —and commit to building no more incinerators? Surely we would hope that the existing incineration plants reach the end of their lives, and that we are reducing residual waste sufficiently that we do not require any replacements.

The Government must come forward with a comprehensive vision for the future of UK waste; otherwise, we will be flying blind. I urge the Government to instigate an immediate stop to all new incinerators being built, regardless of whether they have been approved, and whether that approval was through planning permission or an operational licence awarded by the Environment Agency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Back in November, the farming Minister unbelievably said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was striking how many people were coming up to him at farming events and saying, “You’re right to be making these changes to APR and BPR.” Conservative Members have been out and about all over the country; indeed, I was in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire yesterday, and I have not found one farmer who thinks that he is right. In fact, the level of anger and sheer disbelief among our farming community is immense as this Government’s attack on our farming cash flows continues through the dramatic reduction in delinked payments, the sudden stop of the sustainable farming incentive and the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions—I could go on. Business confidence is at an all-time low, so can the Minister provide the name of just one farmer he has spoken to who thinks he and his Government are right to be pursuing these changes?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I suggest that the shadow Minister goes out and speaks to a few more people, because I was stopped in a local village just this weekend and encouraged —[Interruption.] I am not going to name names, but he should check with some of his Conservative candidates in elections. They said, “Keep on going, you are doing the right thing.” The situation is not as the shadow Minister describes. He might do well to look at the figures for projected farm business incomes for this year, which show that in many sectors, those business incomes are doing rather well. That probably explains why people are not as exercised about it as him.