Environment Test From Patch Testing (First sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 16th August 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

[Fleur Anderson]

Grouse Shooting

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. Thank you for giving me permission to be excused at the start of the debate—I was in the main Chamber speaking on a private Member’s Bill.

The petition states:

“grouse shooting is bad for people, the environment and wildlife”,

while arguing that it is “economically insignificant”. I am afraid I must dispute that in the strongest terms, and I will outline my reasons. Just last year, Professor Simon Denny and Tracey Latham-Green of the Institute of Social Innovation and Impact at the University of Northampton concluded an economic study looking at the social effects of integrated moorland management, including grouse shooting, on moorland communities, and I want to share some of their findings.

First, on the positive impact of grouse shooting on the rural economy, the direct economic benefit of grouse shooting to rural communities is estimated to be £67.7 million per annum. The direct impact is thought to be as high as £2 billion to the country. In England, grouse moor management is responsible for more than 1,500 full-time jobs, of which 700 are directly involved in grouse moor management, and a further 820 are in related services and industries. That has a huge impact on remote rural communities, which would otherwise have limited economic opportunity.

Research has shown that the associated spin-offs of grouse shooting in the north of England are worth an estimated £15 million a year and benefit a raft of rural businesses, including game dealers, the hospitality industry, equipment suppliers and transport operators, many of whom are based in the most remote areas. As one of the joint authors of the report concluded,

“grouse moor management is part of an integrated system of activities”,

including a whole range of things benefiting health, wellbeing and the economic prosperity of local communities.

That brings me to my second point, on the positive impact on moorland management of grouse shooting, and on wider conservation measures, which include peatland restoration, carbon sequestration and improving habitats for many other ground-nesting birds. More carbon is stored in peat in UK moorlands than in the combined forests of Britain and France. Therefore, careful management of moorland as part of grouse moorland management is essential to preserve the carbon that is locked up in the underlying peat. Grouse moorland managers have been actively working on a number of projects, including revegetating bare peat and blocking up moorland drains to raise water tables to encourage the growth of sphagnum moss, which helps the flow of surface water and filters out any discolouration. In the north Pennines alone, I know from my own experience that grouse moor managers have blocked more than 2,500 miles of drain ditches, and 300 acres of bare peat have been revegetated, with plenty more still planned.

Research has shown that where moors are managed by groundkeepers, ground-nesting birds, such as curlew and lapwings, are three and a half times as likely to raise a chick to fledgling. A survey of upland breeding birds in parts of England and Scotland has found that the densities of golden plover, curlew, redshank and lapwing are five times greater on managed grouse moorlands than on unmanaged moor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, the mosaic of species of flora and fauna is widely known on managed grouse moorland. All of that is possible only where moorland is carefully managed, with the income gained from grouse shooting put back into helping to cover the costs associated with managing the land, protecting that carbon storage.

To conclude, it is vital to take a wide-lens approach to grouse shooting, rather than look at it from a headline political point of view. It creates jobs and is good for the rural economy, the environment, conservation and carbon storage.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I would like to offer Mr Djanogly two minutes.

Environment Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

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

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I want to speak to new clause 25, amendment 46 and amendment 22, which would cement in legislation forward-looking protections for trees, deforestation, species conservation and biodiversity gain.

We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Many of my Luton South constituents have contacted me deeply concerned about nature and biodiversity in the UK and across the world. The Bill was an opportunity to embed ambitious environmental protections in law and to kick-start a nature recovery ahead of COP26 and the convention on biological diversity, COP15.

The state of nature is very alarming. Wildlife in Britain is in freefall, with 44% of species in decline over the last 10 years. One in seven native British species are now at risk of extinction. UK tree planting targets were missed by over 50% in 2019-20, and across the world the World Wide Fund for Nature’s “Living Planet Report 2020” found that there had been an average 68% decline in the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish since 1970.

So instead of a radical plan that shows global leadership in addressing the climate and nature crisis, the Government’s Bill dramatically falls short of what is needed. As the Environmental Audit Committee stated, the draft Bill

“is a missed opportunity for taking a holistic approach to environment and climate change, placing them at the heart of Government policy.”

I believe that the Government are resisting concrete, ambitious protections, so that our environment can be used as a bargaining chip that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards.

I hope that the Government will support the Opposition’s amendments that seek to enhance the protections in the Bill. We need the Government to publish a tree strategy for England, coupled with clear targets that would drastically increase woodland coverage, to protect and maintain new and restored existing woodlands. New clause 25 would ensure that the Government’s tree strategy was transparent about the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland. As the planting of trees is a local issue as much as a global issue, will the Minister commit to ring-fencing a significant proportion of tree-planting grants of the £640 million Nature for Climate fund for local authorities, so that they can plant trees at scale and play their part in tackling the global crisis?

We also need the species conservation strategies to contribute to nature’s recovery. Amendment 46 would help deliver that, and could ensure that effective strategies are put in place to restore bees and other pollinator species and protect them from harmful pesticides. Amendment 22 would require the Government to commit to maintaining habitats that are secured under biodiversity gain in perpetuity, rather than the 30 years currently specified in the Bill. These amendments would embed sustained, forward-looking action in law to begin to reverse species decline and loss of species, and set nature on a path to recovery.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s closing remarks.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to once again speak in this place to express my support for the Environment Bill. It was fantastic to have the opportunity to serve on the Bill Committee and to see all the hard work that has gone into this piece of legislation. I repeat my for all the work that she has done in bringing forward this Bill.

All of us in this House will agree that the environment is precious, and I care deeply about protecting and enhancing it for future generations. As the Minister will be well aware from my interactions with her, from lobbying to stop the development of the Aire valley incinerator to the recent granting of bathing water status on the River Wharfe in my constituency, I and many of my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley care deeply about enhancing our environment. As I deliver this speech, two of my constituents, Patrick Godden and Jack Hanson, are completing a walk from Ilkley to Westminster to raise awareness and funds for the Ilkley clean river campaign, a group that has campaigned hard to improve water quality in the River Wharfe. Measures in the Bill such as the statutory duty on water companies to develop sewage management plans and the changes to the water companies licensing process will ensure that the River Wharfe and many other rivers up and down the country have better water quality and biodiversity and enhanced aquatic ecosystems, and I wholly wholeheartedly approve of that.

I am delighted that this Government are following other countries in introducing conservation covenants. The Government have acknowledged the important role landowners can play in conservation efforts. The current system makes it difficult for legal obligations on environmental protection to stay in place once land is sold or passed on, and conservation covenants will help. These long-term commitments will ensure positive opportunities for conservation are not missed, and the conservation covenants will introduce obligations to improve conservation as long as public good will is there and will help restore the natural qualities of our land.

There are other great measures in this Bill, such as local nature recovery strategies; the Government have recognised that local nature recovery must start at the local level, and that will make a huge difference locally. I would briefly like to mention my support for amendment 41 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), a probing amendment which seeks to include a provision for local planning authorities to be able to take unlawful tree felling and lack of compliance with restocking and enforcement orders by landowners into account when considering planning obligations.

We have an obligation to ensure that the next generation inherits a healthier planet and the Environment Bill goes a long way to achieving that.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the opportunity to speak once again on this important piece of legislation and am thankful to the many constituents who have urged me to support the strongest possible protections for our natural world, as well as Cheshire Wildlife Trust, which is such a powerful and passionate advocate for nature across the Wirral and Cheshire.

The UK is in the midst of an intense biodiversity crisis. In just 50 years, 41% of all species have declined, with 15% brought to the brink of extinction. Most worryingly of all, bees, which play such an important role by pollinating 70% of all the crops we eat, are under existential threat; since 1900, 13 species have been lost with another 35 at risk.

Time and again the Prime Minister has promised bold and decisive action to tackle the existential threat of biodiversity loss and ecological crisis, but, as is so often the case with this Government, the reality fails to match the rhetoric: not only does this Bill fail to bring forward the measures that are badly needed to halt ecological collapse, but it does not even maintain the comprehensive environmental protections that we had as a member of the European Union. I am therefore very grateful to the hon. Members who have tabled important amendments to this Bill, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones).

I was especially glad to add my name to new clause 25, which would commit the Government to publishing a national tree strategy for England. England is one of the least wooded countries in the western world, with just 13% of all land covered by woodland compared with an average of 44% in mainland Europe. Increasing woodland has a vital role to play in tackling climate breakdown and promoting biodiversity, but fewer than 50% of the annual tree planting targets were met in 2020. That is simply not good enough.

I also urge Members to join me in supporting new clause 24, which would enshrine vital protections for our peatlands into law and introduce a comprehensive ban on the burning of heather on all upland peat. Peatland plays a vital role not only in promoting biodiversity but also as a natural carbon sink, yet the Government have failed to safeguard this precious natural resource. Some 80% of the UK’s 3 million hectares of peatland are chronically damaged, with around 60% enjoying no protection whatsoever.

Warm words simply are not good enough; today’s votes provide us with an opportunity to prove we say what we mean in tackling the biodiversity crisis, so I call on the Government to put their money where their mouth is and join me in supporting these and many other amendments tabled today.

Waste Incinerators

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I extend my thanks to you and Mr Speaker for granting this urgent personal debate on waste incineration? Before I get going, let me declare to the House that my family run and operate a plastic recycling business. There is much to cover in this debate, so in the short time that I have, I want specifically to talk about the Aire valley incinerator that is due to be constructed in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

On 8 December last year, the Environment Agency made the decision to award an environmental permit for a waste incinerator to be built in Marley, right on the outskirts of Keighley. The scheme was originally awarded planning consent by our local authority, Bradford Council, back in early 2017. That decision was in spite of huge local opposition. That opposition was led for many years by the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team, which is an excellent group. I must at this early stage in the debate give particular credit and extend my personal thanks to Simon Shimbles and Ian Hammond, who are part of the campaign team and have been working closely with me throughout the many conversations I have had, so that we can collectively raise our concerns. Their passion, dedication and acute attention to detail has shone throughout all our discussions.

This is a campaign team that has seen, over the last six years or so, its following and the involvement from local residents grow to over 6,000 people. The team has worked tirelessly over many years. In my view, since forming, they have represented the views of the many residents in Riddlesden, East Morton, Long Lee, Thwaites Brow, Keighley and our wider community far better on this subject than our local district council.

As I have indicated, I stand here in the full knowledge that the green light has been granted for the Aire valley incinerator to operate, so I want to pick up on some of the huge concerns that I and many others still have, and address some of the flawed decision making and disastrous decisions that have been adopted throughout the planning application and the environmental permit stages.

This is an incinerator that is to be built at the bottom of a valley in close proximity to schools, residential care homes, playing fields, people’s homes—spaces where children grow up and play. Yet despite that, and a huge number of other factors which I will go into, both the Environment Agency and Bradford Council, as the local planning authority, have deemed the construction and operation of the incinerator to be suitable and fit for our environment.

This has been a long-running issue. The environmental permit for the incinerator was granted last December, but the campaign against the project began way back in 2013. In October of that year, the very first planning application for the incinerator was made to Bradford Council. Four years and three applications later, the Labour-run and controlled Bradford Council granted planning permission. However, throughout this whole period, many residents, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), questioned time and again whether the planning applications were scrutinised by Bradford Council in enough detail.

I only entered this place in 2019. I have therefore taken the time to look back at Labour-run Bradford Council’s report, which was produced by its assistant director for planning for a planning committee that met in February 2017. The report included a recommendation to grant planning permission. I have a copy of that report here and it makes worrying reading. It concludes that there are no community safety implications. Bradford Council’s air quality officer registered no objection. The Environment Agency registered no objection at the planning stage, commenting that

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

despite it being in close proximity to many homes and situated in the bottom of a valley.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I am facing a very similar situation in the Delves Lane area of my constituency at the moment, where I have just heard that the local authority, Durham County Council, has done a deal with a local developer to not put forward planning permission until after the local elections. Is not that exactly the sort of issue that we are facing with these proposals when they come forward: shady backroom deals, often dragged out for longer in order to avoid democratic scrutiny? My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue he faces in his constituency.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. To be quite honest, I am not surprised and I find that an absolute disgrace to hear. We are talking about incinerators being developed right next to people’s homes, in close proximity to schools, care homes, and where people will be growing up and wanting to thrive in a sustainable environment. I am sorry to hear that he is experiencing a similar situation with Durham County Council.

The planning committee report made comments that concluded that planning permission should be granted. I quote another worrying statement:

“The proposal addresses the waste needs of Bradford community in proximity to the waste arisings.”

Given that Keighley is situated on the periphery of Bradford district, that is factually incorrect. So I say to Labour-run Bradford Council: Keighley will not be treated as your dumping ground.

The report goes on:

“The proposal enhances the environment and”—

wait for it, Madam Deputy Speaker—

“promotes recycling.”

That is complete and utter nonsense. How on earth can burning waste be classed by Bradford Council as enhancing the quality of the environment, when it is known that particulate matter such as sulphates, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride and black carbon enter the atmosphere from such a process? I can only conclude that the council must be taking us in Keighley for fools. And then to go on to say that the incinerator, which burns waste, promotes recycling—that goes beyond taking the biscuit.

Following Bradford Council’s planning approval, the applicant, Endless Energy, applied to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit, triggering a two-stage consultation process, with the second consultation taking place just last year. The Environment Agency promoted that it was “minded to approve” the permit—again, all this despite the valid concerns that had been raised by residents, the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and myself.

If that was not bad enough, the Environment Agency decided to hold its supposedly open and transparent consultation right in the middle of a pandemic—a consultation, I might add, that took place wholly online, denying my residents with no digital connectivity or internet access the ability to contribute. That consultation contained over 50 documents for the general public to review, yet, due to the pandemic, those documents were not made publicly available in local libraries or community spaces as one would typically expect. I raised my concerns, and admittedly extra time was granted by the Environment Agency for the consultation, but the stark reality is that members of the public from my constituency and beyond were given an inadequate chance to properly scrutinise the proposals and properly comment on the concerns regarding air quality that they had originally raised.

I want to provide some clear examples of the Environment Agency’s failings to be open and transparent throughout this process. The campaign team experienced significant delays in respect of freedom of information requests. Under the terms of the FOI regulations, the Environment Agency is required to reply within 20 working days. The worst example experienced by the campaign team was a delay of four months. That is completely unacceptable. It resulted in a lost opportunity to carry out proper scrutiny of the applicant’s information.

Here is a second example: there were missing documents that were not made available to the public at the start of the second consultation. Copies of all five of the EA’s notices sent to the applicant were omitted, meaning that the public could see only the answers from the applicant and not the questions that the Environment Agency asked. Those missing documents were made available only when I and the campaign team asked for them.

To be frank, that is shoddy work from a regulatory body, and I cannot express my frustration and anger enough. I am exceptionally pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who I know cares deeply about ensuring that our regulatory bodies do their job properly, is listening and is able to take on board the challenges that we have faced. My constituents deserve much better

The potential impact on people’s health of the incineration process cannot be ignored. In a 10-page submission that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I jointly submitted to the Environment Agency, we raised the following concerns: issues with the inadequate and unfair consultation process itself; concerns about noise and odour pollution; and concerns about the fact that the incinerator is built at the bottom of a valley, the resultant challenges of the topography, and the public health implications of emissions as a result of temperature or cloud inversions.

We also raised concerns that pollution modelling used unreliable data. I will give an example. The Environment Agency used data from the Bingley weather station. The Bingley weather station is located 262 metres above sea level, whereas the proposed Aire valley incinerator is situated roughly 85 metres above sea level. That discrepancy in evaluation means that the estimated dispersal of emissions from the incinerator is based on information from a weather station in a significantly raised position, where wind speeds behave much differently from those experienced at the bottom of the Aire valley.

We raised concerns about the proposed monitoring of emissions and any enforcement action that is likely to follow. We raised issues with the stack height. The incinerator is proposed to have a stack height—a chimney height—of only 60 metres, yet other comparable incinerators have stacks far higher, where emissions are better dispersed.

I could continue—the list goes on—but perhaps the most significant of our concerns is the impact the incinerator will have on human health via air quality. The Minister will be aware that, back in 2018 and 2019, Public Health England funded a study to examine emissions of particulate matter from incinerators and their impact on human health. The study found that, while emissions of particulate matter from waste incinerators are low and often make a small contribution to ambient background levels, they make a contribution nevertheless. Of course, there are many variables and influencing factors, such as the stack height, the surrounding topography, the feedstock, the microclimate—again, the list goes on.

Residents are rightly concerned—I share their concerns—about the impact on air quality, not just from the incinerator itself but from the increased traffic flows bringing waste to the site. Unbelievably, in questioning the decision making for the award of the environmental permit, I was told by the Environment Agency that it could consider only the emissions from the incinerator itself, not those from the increased traffic flow from the heavy vehicles that will bring the waste to the site, because that was a planning matter, which Labour-run Bradford Council had already considered and deemed to be acceptable.

It is my strong view that my constituents have been let down: failed by our Labour-run local authority, which claims to have its residents’ best interests at heart, but also let down by the Environment Agency, a regulatory body that, in my view, carried out a half-hearted attempt through its consultation process. May I use this opportunity to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do all in her power to take a close look at the Environment Agency’s involvement, to hold it to account and to ensure that it fulfils its statutory duty and that its involvement in such consultations takes place in a proper manner?

I want to use the last few moments to talk about the role of incineration in general, and about the circular economy. The circular economy means prioritising, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and regarding waste as something that can be turned into a resource. Many of us in this place and beyond will be familiar with the waste hierarchy, which gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place and, when waste is created, gives preference to preparing it for reuse, then for recycling, then for recovery and last of all for disposal, whether to landfill or waste incineration. As the Minister will be well aware, I believe that all Government policy should be based on this hierarchy.

I am pleased to see the extensive work that has gone into the Environment Bill, led by my hon. Friend the Minister, and also into the Government’s resource and waste strategy. I was proud to sit on the Environment Bill Committee and see that piece of legislation work its way through this House. I look forward to getting involved in more of the debates as it comes back to this Chamber. It is my firm view that if we are serious about investing in our circular economic model, we must, as a country, incentivise reuse, recovery and recycling practices. Of course I appreciate that some waste simply cannot fall into those categories, but we must do all we can to discourage incineration and landfill practices as the preferred option.

That brings me on to the introduction of an incineration tax, which is something that I have raised in this place before, and I commend this option. Unlike incineration, landfill is already subject to a tax, and an incineration tax could work in a similar way. It would be a fiscal de-incentivisation to incineration and could lead to more innovation in other practices, such as recycling. Of course, an incineration tax is not new or radical. Other countries have already adopted it, including the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria.

We owe it to the next generation to ensure that the planet is left safe and in a much better place than we found it. However, building more incinerators such as the Aire valley incinerator, the one in my constituency, goes against everything we are trying to achieve. I know that many other colleagues from across the House are of the same view. I suspect that it will be a couple of years before the Aire valley incinerator is built and becomes operational, and I dread the date, but I wish to reassure all residents in my constituency that the campaign to stop it is by no means over. I will do all I can to ensure that their voice is heard, and to ensure that the operator, and those overseeing it—Labour-run Bradford Council and the Environment Agency—are watched like a hawk. I will ensure that their actions are scrutinised every step of the way.

Environment Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to be called to speak in this debate. Improving the environment is a topic that I am incredibly passionate about, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I start by saying that it has been great to serve on the Bill Committee for this piece of legislation. There is so much that is good in this Bill and I give particular thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for her energy and enthusiasm in driving this Bill forward.

Protecting the environment and our natural environment is, without doubt, one of the greatest gifts that we can pass on to the next generation, and protecting the environment is something that is exceptionally close to my heart, and, of course, to many of my constituents. I want to focus my comments in this part of today’s debate on governance. This Bill is of crucial importance to providing a legal framework for our environmental governance for a post-Brexit global Britain. As it stands right now, our environmental law and policies are mostly driven by the European Union, but I know that, when it comes to the environment, the Government are keen to go further, and go beyond the baseline standards that we adopted while we were within the European Union.

All policy should be long term, but it is particularly important that environmental policy goes above and beyond, which is why I welcome the fact that the Environment Bill will allow the setting of new, long-term, legally binding and joined-up targets, focusing on air quality, biodiversity, water, waste reduction and resource efficiency. The Office for Environmental Protection will go a long way to deterring the breaches of environmental law. For far too long, many people have felt that breaches of environmental law in Britain have gone unchecked—it is almost as if they see those breaches as second or third-tier offences—and that enforcement power could be better spent elsewhere. Of course, that is wrong, which is why I am so pleased that the Office for Environmental Protection will be given the flexibility to go a long way to help change that. Damaging the environment damages us all, and I therefore stress to the Minister that, on this point, it is vital that the OEP is fully independent and properly funded to have teeth and weight to take action, and that it is allowed to take the enforcement action that it deems necessary.

In conclusion, there is always much more that we can do, and I urge the Government to push this piece of legislation forward at pace. We all have a duty to leave the environment in a cleaner, greener state than we found it, and this Bill helps to achieve that.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]]

Despite the infectious enthusiasm of the Minister, I have to say that, sadly, the deficiencies of the Bill bolster my scepticism about the Prime Minister’s supposedly Damascene conversion to eco-warrior from someone who, in only 2015, claimed that the science surrounding warming temperatures was “without foundation”. But if his Government want to prove me wrong, they certainly have the chance to do so today. First, they could support new clause 9, which would provide that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an environmental objective to achieve and maintain: biodiversity; support for human health and wellbeing; and sustainable use of resources. The new clause includes specified environmental commitments that have been made by the Government including in the UN Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of September 2020 and under the Climate Change Act 2008.

Secondly, the Government should support amendments 25 and 2, whose principles are supported by the British Lung Foundation. These amendments set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM_2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. As it stands, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition for the achievement of this target. I stress to the Minister the importance of these amendments to my constituents. A 2018 report showed that Salford and Manchester were in breach of these WHO guidelines, and air pollution, primarily caused by vehicles, is said to contribute to at least 1,200 deaths a year across Greater Manchester.

Finally, the Government should support amendment 39. There is huge concern about the decision to allow a derogation regarding the use of certain neonicotinoids. The decision goes against all commitments that the Government made to help nature, including an explicit pledge to keep pesticide restrictions after Brexit. Without the scrutiny that amendment 39 would provide, there is a significant risk that the emergency authorisation of such pesticides could sadly become a common occurrence.

There are so many additional amendments in this section that have been eloquently articulated by Members today, but it is clear that we are in a climate and ecological emergency, and that we need this Environment Bill to create the highest of environmental standards. Without the changes outlined, it simply does not do that; it is just greenwash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) [V]]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary environment group and as a member of the Environment Bill Committee, I very strongly welcome this Bill. As we have heard, it may not give everything that everyone wants, but it is a huge step forward in protecting the planet. I really welcome the ambition of the Government and the Minister to work towards that.

I want to focus my comments on water, which is, in many ways, at the heart of this Bill. I have three particular things. The water management schemes will help to move water from wetter parts of the country to drier parts of the country. In South Cambridgeshire and East Anglia, we are one of the driest part of the country and we need more water. I very much welcome the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) to reduce sewage outflows into rivers. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced that in the body of this Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has been a champion for chalk streams and I very much welcome his amendment 3 to clause 82, which would revoke or vary abstraction licences, or give the Secretary of State the power to do so, if rivers run dry. Again, the Government have introduced that in the heart of the Bill, so more water, less sewage—what more could we want?

The reason why I focus my comments on chalk streams is that they run like a network of silver threads throughout South Cambridgeshire—the River Cam most famously, but also many of its tributaries such as the River Shep, which runs down to the RSPB reserve at Fowlmere, the village that I grew up in. I remember playing in the chalk streams as a child. They were so clear that the fish looked like they were floating in the air. The chalk streams are very rare, very beautiful and very threatened. I went back to the RSPB reserve in Fowlmere during the election campaign and it was bone dry. It was not that the chalk streams were running low; they were not there at all. I went there again recently, there was some water back in the streams, but no wildlife. The wildlife cannot survive if the streams run dry. I have been working with local campaign groups, particularly Water Resources East and Cam Valley Forum, to help save the chalk streams. I thank the Minister and her officials for their time, because I know that they have been doing a lot of work with us on that—in particular, setting up a chalk stream working group. I welcome the Government’s move to protect chalk streams by giving the Secretary of State the powers to revoke or vary licences if chalk streams run dry. That will bring a ray of hope to the chalk stream campaigners of South Cambridgeshire.

I want to leave the Government with this challenge: when Parliament votes on this Bill, it will vote to give the Government powers to save the chalk streams. If the chalk streams are threatened, I ask them please to make sure that they use those powers.

[Robbie Moore]

I start by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also declare that my family run and operate a plastic recycling business.

There is of course much to talk about in this Bill, but in the short time that I have, I want to talk about rivers and, in particular, improving water quality. The state of some of our rivers today is quite frankly shocking: 40% of all rivers in England and Wales are now polluted with human sewage. That not only threatens aquatic species such as trout and grayling that we might find in the River Wharfe in Ilkley in my constituency, but it is a threat to our own human health. Much praise must be given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill, which is a fantastic piece of proposed legislation which, as he knows, I wholeheartedly support. I am delighted that the Government have decided to adopt it and encompass so many of its measures within this Bill. My delight also stems from my constituency, because ever since I was elected to this place in December 2019, protecting rivers and improving water quality has been a crucial priority for me.

In Ilkley, for far too long untreated sewage has been released into the River Wharfe by Yorkshire Water at times of high rainfall. We have a dedicated team at the Ilkley clean river campaign group, which has been running a long and very successful campaign to clean up rivers. I have supported them in their endeavours to do so ever since entering this place. By working together as a community, there is so much that can be achieved. My thanks go out to all who are involved in that campaign.

I am very pleased that the Government will be placing on a statutory footing an obligation on sewerage companies to make drainage and water management plans, and that the Government will be setting clear water quality targets. However, may I make a plea to the Minister as a follow-up to the many conversations that we have already had on this point? As she is aware, the Ilkley section of the River Wharfe has now been granted bathing water status—one of the highest levels of water quality anywhere in the UK. However, while I am delighted with DEFRA’s decision to grant such a mechanism for providing strict regulation to improve water quality, it is important that we recognise the difference between bathing and clean water status, as many strong undercurrents within a river can cause difficulty for swimming, as has previously happened in the Wharfe. I urge the Government, in future, perhaps to look at a rebranding of such status, as the title of bathing water status can be misleading to the public.

This a good Bill that I wholeheartedly support. I truly believe that it is the start of a greener, cleaner environment for the future of Great Britain.

[Geraint Davies [V]]

[Inaudible.]

EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement: Fishing Industry

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I know that in previous debates on fishing the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the importance of tariff-free access to the EU market, and the trade and co-operation agreement gives our fishing export businesses that access, which is particularly important for the shellfish sector.

It is not the case that shellfish cannot be exported at all until April. There have been certain issues regarding bivalve molluscs and getting the correct paperwork, and some issues around depuration and the ability to export stocks that have not been purified prior to export, but they do not amount to a ban on the export of shellfish.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the distant water fleets. It is a convention that in the absence of agreements on quotas—this is pertinent to the agreement we have with Norway—access is suspended, but we will seek access to Arctic cod in the usual way for those parts of our fleet that benefit from that stock.

The hon. Gentleman asked when fishermen will see the uplift in quota. As I made clear, the EU is giving up 15% of its catch in our waters in year one, so fishermen will see some important advantages in this very first year.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]]

We are seeing teething issues arise for our fishing exporters, with health checks and customs documents causing some backlogs in exports to the EU. Will my right hon. Friend outline the steps his Department is taking to ensure that exporters know what is required of them, so that those challenges can be eased?

Waste Incineration and Recycling Rates

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate. I also refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that my family runs a plastic waste recycling business.

I want to use my limited time today to talk specifically about waste incineration, touching on my concerns about how decisions regarding new incinerator applications and environmental permitting for waste incinerators are made, and the future direction of waste incineration itself.



I am sure we are all aware of the waste hierarchy. It gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place. When waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for reuse, then for recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal—landfill and waste incineration. I believe all Government policy should be based on this hierarchy.

There is a strong case to argue that if sufficient weight is given to utilising waste incineration as an option for dealing with waste, then a fiscal disincentive, an incineration tax, should be considered as an option, as we have with the landfill tax—I would also favour increasing landfill tax—because otherwise that can become a barrier to developing a greener circular economy, by preventing resources from being reused and depressing recycling rates, and, as a method, incineration gives rise to air pollution concerns.

I want to touch on air pollution. It is quite clear that the process of incineration from waste creates a number of emissions, and there is much concern regarding waste incineration and air quality and human health. This concern relates predominantly to particulate matter, which is predominantly composed of materials such as sulphate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride and black carbon. The Minister will be aware that, back in 2018 and 2019, Public Health England funded a study to examine emissions of particulate matter from incinerators and their impact on human health. The study found that emissions from particulate matter from waste incinerators are low, and make only a small contribution to ambient background levels. However, while levels may be low, this study acknowledged that there is a contribution nevertheless. There will be many factors that influence the impact on air quality and human health that the incinerator can have, such as the stack height of an incinerator, whether the incinerator is located in the bottom of a valley, the resultant impact of temperature or cloud inversions, and its proximity to homes, schools and playing fields.

Rather frustratingly, and despite huge amounts of local opposition—including from an excellent and well-run campaign group in my constituency, the Aire Valley Against Incineration, along with many residents, myself, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), from my neighbouring constituency—the green light has just been issued for the Aire Valley incinerator to operate. This incinerator is to be built on the periphery of Keighley, in the bottom of a valley in close proximity to schools, playing fields and homes. The scheme was awarded planning consent and given the green light by our local authority, Bradford Council, back in 2016, and earlier this year was awarded an environmental permit by the Environment Agency. All this despite strong local opposition.

Residents are quite rightly concerned about air quality—not just from the incinerator itself, but from the increased traffic flows bringing waste to the site. In questioning the decision making for the environmental permit that has just been issued by the Environment Agency, unbelievably, I was told that the Environment Agency could consider only emissions from the incinerator itself, not the emissions from increased traffic flows, because that was a planning matter, which Bradford Council, in already giving the green light, had considered acceptable in the first place. This raises a much bigger issue: the process of how permits are awarded for incinerators. My concern is that a cohesive, full-picture review is not taken into account when looking at the impact on air quality from the whole incineration process itself, which includes the emissions from traffic flow.

For me, this debate is vital. As a Member who sat on the Environment Bill Committee, I am pretty excited about what the Government are doing going forward. However, I reaffirm my commitment that all Government policy should go back to that first waste hierarchy and look at adopting a review of whether an incineration tax is the right route to go down, as I believe it should be.

The message from Keighley is that we do not want this incinerator. It is unfortunate that it looks as if the green light has been given, but local voices should be heard much more loudly and clearly in any decision-making process for anything that is likely to have an impact on air quality or human health.

Environment Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 22nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for his interest in this subject, which I have become much more interested in since researching it and talking to relevant bodies.

Steel is considered to be safe, as are tungsten alloys and tin, so there are alternatives out there. There is obviously an issue with single-use plastics, which would currently have to be used with alternatives to lead. However, I believe that with the inspiration and impetus from this amendment, the whole shooting community—including manufacturers of alternatives to lead shot—would be encouraged to use and produce ammunition that was far, far safer than lead shot.

Lead does not need to be used; non-toxic ammunition is widely available, effective, and comparably priced. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden may be interested to know that Denmark and the Netherlands banned the use of all lead shot in the 1990s; they have proved that changing to safer ammunition is entirely possible.

Why do we need to do this new clause? We know that 8.7% of ducks and geese across Europe die every year from eating lead shot; this includes 23% of pochard, which is a species threatened with global extinction, and 31% of pintail ducks. Lead poisoning from ammunition kills an estimated 75,000 water birds each year, as well as other birds and mammals.

Through ingestion by cattle—which then results in food-safety issues as it enters their system—lead can end up in restaurants and retail outlets; in our food. It also seeps into land, including wetlands, and creates toxic grounds; wetlands have been found to be peppered with lead shot.

Lead is dangerous for people’s health, as lead shot often fragments and is ingested in game meat.  Children and pregnant women are particularly at risk due to the negative impact of lead on the developing brain, which has led to Waitrose labelling its game meat products as not safe for pregnant women and children.

Lead is not something we should allow into our food system. Somewhere in the order of 10,000 children from the UK hunting community are estimated to be at risk of negative impacts on IQ due to household consumption of game meat. If the effects were immediate and something happened to us that caused an immediate breakdown of our health, we would have stopped this years ago, but because lead has a subtle effect on our health—on our brain development and IQ—it has been allowed to carry on for too long.

The new clause has not just been dreamed up in the past few months; it is the result of the Government engaging with this issue since 1991. There have been stakeholder groups, compliance studies, risk assessments and reviews, but the stars are now aligned. We cannot any longer say that the new clause is not needed. I know that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation is moving towards a ban on lead shot, which I welcome. It wants to take action within the next five years to see a change. There is clearly appetite in the shooting world to accomplish what is set out in the new clause by banning lead shot. However, things are not moving fast enough. We cannot entirely rely on that compliance, but the new clause would take us where the shooting community seems to want us to go.

The stars are aligned, and it is time for the new clause. There is a limited ban at the moment, focused on wetland birds, but it is widely flouted and there has been only one prosecution, which is another reason why we need to have the new clause in the legislation. The partial regulation focused on protecting wetland birds, and similar regulations in other home nations, have been ineffective in reducing lead poisoning in water birds because there has been a high level of non-compliance. Birds feeding in terrestrial habitats, where most of the lead shot is legally deposited, are also affected. Moreover, enforcement of the limited regulation has been negligible so far, and human and livestock health have not been protected. Two large-scale restriction proposals are currently being progressed in the EU under REACH, which will bring about a total ban and additional benefits to law enforcement. Let us pre-empt that and go one step further in the UK.

This is the right time for policy change. The coinciding of the new Environment Bill and proposed policy change on lead shot is opportune. The nine main UK shooting organisations recognise the risk from lead ammunition. There is no debate about that. The imminent impacts of regulation on lead ammunition in the EU, and the likely impacts on UK markets for game meat, all need to be considered. Hence, on 22 February, the move to a voluntary phase-out of lead shot within five years was announced. That has already prepared the UK’s shooting community for change, and I have seen that the media narratives around shooting have changed to reflect that.

To date, however, voluntary bans on lead shot have always failed, so to say that the new clause is unnecessary is just not good enough. Denmark, which has gone ahead of us on this issue—we can learn from them—banned all lead shot in 1996. Hunters accept that it was because a progressive Government took such a step that they now lead the world in the control of lead poisoning from shot.

Although there is a desire for change within hunting organisations, there also remains a tradition of resisting regulation, which might just roll on and on over the next five years.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I want to pick up on that point. It is not only BASC but the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers Organisation and the Country Land and Business Association that are behind the transition. They are actually going further than what the hon. Lady is asking for, by asking for a ban on single-use plastics in the cartridges, but what they are clearly asking for is a period of smooth transition over five years. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is more appropriate?

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree, and I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the wide support for a move in this direction, but if we can ensure it is in legislation, the move will go further, it will be deeper and it will be guaranteed to happen. Given the high toxicity of lead, we cannot just leave this issue to voluntary moves by all those organisations. Let us go with the flow and accept their willingness to change, but let us underpin that with legislative change, which moves it on faster. These issues have already been under negotiation. The smooth transition is happening. I am not asking for this to happen on 1 January—the proposal is to give another year. There is time to move forward; the new clause is very reasonable. If we want to go further and talk more about single-use plastics, that will happen in time, and this proposal will enable manufacturers to do that.

Only regulation will provide a guaranteed market for ammunition manufacturers. Moving all users of ammunition through these changes, all at once, will enable ammunition manufacturers to make the change that we all surely want to see, and will ensure the provision of game free from lead ammunition for the retail market. It will enable cost-effective enforcement and protect wildlife and human health much earlier than in five years. Why would we want lead shot in our food for another five years? Why would we want to kill all those birds for another five years?

Action on this issue was recommended in 1983 in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on lead in the environment. It has been long enough. It is long overdue. Now, at last, is the time to act.

Environment Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 21st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

That sounds a lot, but when you put it into the context of the data I described, it comes to about 6,000-odd hectares.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Across the whole UK, there are about 17.6 million hectares of productive agricultural land. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it is about striking the correct balance? With the Prime Minister announcing 30,000 hectares for tree planting annually, does he agree that that will contribute towards reaching the target? It is about striking a balance.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and may well have anticipated my next comments. He referred to his miniature oracle—the mobile phone—to look up the number of hectares in productive use in the UK. In a tree strategy, it is important not to substitute productive land for tree cover if that can be avoided. We must ensure that marginal land, or land that is not in particularly productive use, can be afforested, and that land that is in productive use or has a high yield can continue to operate on that basis. We should not try to sequester land that could be used for other purposes to put trees on.

On the overall target, we must ask ourselves—indeed, the Committee on Climate Change has asked itself—whether it is possible to get that number of trees on the land in the UK, bearing in mind the constraints that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The answer is yes, absolutely, it is possible. The Forestry Commission and Forest Research have done a lot of research on the amount of marginal land in the UK that could have forest cover without impinging on grade 1 agricultural land, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on. The answer is that roughly 5 million hectares are available in England for that sort of activity. There is land available.

A tree strategy would have to take account of the point that the hon. Member for Keighley made about what land was available and how it might be afforested, as well as the incentives that might be needed to do that because a lot of that land is in private ownership and some might be purchased for forestation and made available to the public. Other land could be made available through covenants, which the Minister mentioned. But overall, the purpose would be to ensure forestation that increases overall forest cover while making room for the various things that need to be done on the land up to 2050.

I want to come to the 30,000 hectares, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which we have recently heard about in the press. One is not entirely clear what that figure means. A blog from the DEFRA press office on 12 June was headed—I am not sure about the grammar here—“Tree planting on the up in England”. Actually, it talked about tree planting not being particularly on the up in England, because not only have present targets been missed by up to 70% in recent years, but although total new planting in 2019-20 was indeed up, it was only up to 2,330 hectares, which is a tiny proportion of what is required annually to get anywhere near that figure by 2050.

Indeed, the figure very much squeezes the definition of what has been planted by taking into account the total number planted with Government support over the last three financial years and those hectares that the Department thinks have been planted without support—because people like planting trees. It suggests that total new planting, taking into account everything in the UK—Scotland and England as well—comes to about 13,000 hectares altogether. Therefore, even by squeezing the statistics as hard as we can, we still get a pretty low version of that tree planting figure.

Nor is it clear from that press release whether the 30,000 hectares of trees that we hear mentioned is an annual tree planting target or a target up to 2025. It states that

“tree planting in England increased last year but was below the rate needed to reach the manifesto commitment to plant 30,000 hectares of trees across the UK by 2025.”

That is very different from 30,000 a year. If the target is indeed 30,000 a year, that goes some way towards beginning to meet what the Committee on Climate Change has said is the imperative for planting up to 2050, but only halfway. We would probably need to plant about 50,000 to 60,000 hectares a year if we are to reach Committee on Climate Change target.

That is why the new clause sets out targets with particular percentages, because that is the key point: the percentage of land in the UK under woodland or forest cover, now and up to 2050. That is what the target effectively works around. We also need to understand clearly that the target has to be met between Governments, because half of the UK’s new trees were planted in Scotland last year and a substantial amount of the overall UK forest cover target would have to be met there. Therefore, not only would the target have to relate to English planting; it would have to relate to mutual action and discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—and indeed the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly—about what is to be done on tree planting in the UK as a whole. As a matter of interest, Wales comes somewhere between Scotland and England in terms of its percentage of forest cover. Northern Ireland is very bad in its forest cover, so there are further areas to be made up in that context.

Moorland Burning

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I previously worked as a chartered surveyor.

I will focus my contribution on conservation. I speak with some authority on the subject, having been directly involved in many moorland restoration schemes before entering this place, through interactions with landowners, farmers, conservationists and bodies such as Natural England.

As a tool among many, burning plays its part as a conglomerative measure to achieve ecological and conservational benefits. Let me explain why. The process of burning small areas of heather removes older growth and allows plants to regenerate and thrive. New heather, mosses and grass shoots follow, and they, along with the new green flushes of new growth, allow plants such as bilberry to grow, which are key to providing food diversification for many animals such as deer and mountain hares. New growth shoots are liked by many bird species, including red grouse and the golden plover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said. It is important to note that the golden plover, like many other bird species, is often found nesting at higher densities in areas of recently burned heather.

Of course, the burnt areas also act as valuable firebreaks, and evidence upon evidence has been put before us that where dead woody undergrowth is allowed to build up, wildfire risk is dramatically increased. It might be asked why cutting should not be the preferred method for controlling heather growth. The simple answer is that, more often than not, the topography does not lend itself to that technique. It is expensive in labour resource, and often it does not have the desired positive effects that I have outlined. It is also important to note that controlled burning is a precise and professional operation. It is much more than having a box of matches and some dry weather. It involves planning, teamwork and, often, specialist kit. Land managers must understand and comply with strict burning codes, and burning is all undertaken within controlled burning seasons, which run through the wet months from October to April. Why is there a burning season, it might be asked. It is because rank vegetation is burned off when peat is holding water and before the bird nesting season starts. Those controlled, or cool, burns, as they are known, do not burn the peat or the understorey of mosses.

It is my view that heather burning plays its part as a conglomerative measure to achieve ecological and conservation benefits. We should always take an evidence-based approach, and the evidence is clear. When it is carefully managed, burning is good for moorland management and for conservation.