Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Sound management of water companies is of course vital if customers are to receive the high level of service they expect and environmental performance obligations are to be strictly adhered to. Some water companies are better managed than others, so will the Secretary of State guarantee that in his efforts to hold water companies to account, no offer of a regulatory easement will be provided—in other words, no permission to lower standards, relax environmental permits or reduce agreed levels of investment will be provided to any water company, no matter their financial circumstances, by the Government or the regulator?

[Steve Reed]

I will be announcing later this autumn—in just a few weeks’ time—a review of the entire water sector, including regulation. In particular, I want to make sure that regulation is as tough as possible to ensure that the practices and, frankly, the abuses that were going on can no longer happen. Part of that will be complete transparency about what is going on—on the part of the water companies, and also, I have to say, on the part of Government. It was very disappointing that, when he was a Minister, the hon. Gentleman tried to cover up the extent of sewage spills before the election, telling Environment Agency officials not to put the key figures on the front page of its environmental portal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not going to open up that question. We will now have the second question from Robbie Moore.

[Robbie Moore]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

So there we have it: the Secretary of State’s first outing at the Dispatch Box, and he was not able to clearly answer the question I asked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in fulfilling his obligation to hold water companies to account, he will not issue regulatory easements, no matter their financial circumstances? Will he answer that question clearly right now from the Dispatch Box?

[Steve Reed]

As I have already said, we are looking to strengthen, not weaken the regulation. The regulation was inappropriate. It is not just the regulation itself, but the lack of resources the regulators have had. That is why the Water (Special Measures) Bill we are introducing will allow the regulators to claw back resources from water companies that are successfully prosecuted, so that they have the firepower to prosecute further wrongdoing by those water companies or others responsible for it.

Waste Crime: Staffordshire

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate, and I welcome him to the House. I also send him and his father best wishes following his father’s surgery yesterday. It is good to see the Minister in her place for our second debate this week. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to all the officials who worked with me when I was lucky enough to be in what I think is the best Department in Government, specifically on the waste and resources strategy. I should be grateful if she would not mind passing on my thanks, particularly to Emma and Clare in the waste resources team.

I shall start my speech by echoing comments made by colleagues throughout this debate on the dangers of the costs of waste crime to local communities, which are undoubtedly huge. The Environment Agency’s national waste crime survey 2023 report stated that,

“the waste industry estimate costs to the English economy total £1 billion annually through evaded tax, environmental and social harm, and lost legitimate business.”

That impact is of course not only monetary; waste crime in its many forms poses a significant threat to our environment. Illegal dumping and the improper disposal of hazardous waste contaminate our land, water and air. Those pollutants can take years—if not decades—to break down, causing long-term damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. They poison our water supplies, degrade our soils and harm wildlife, leaving a legacy of destruction that future generations must deal with. Most pressing is the extremely negative impact on communities up and the country that are forced to deal with the damaging consequences that harmful pollutants and emissions can have. As we are all constituency MPs, we know that we have residents who are being directly impacted in our constituencies, whether that be from fly-tipping or waste crime of a more serious nature. That is something that my constituents unfortunately experience in Keighley, Ilkley, Craven and the wider Worth valley.

I shall devote the rest of my speech specifically to Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme, on which I completely sympathise with the residents, businesses and wider community of not just Newcastle-under-Lyme, but Silverdale and the wider Stoke-on-Trent area. They have been fighting this issue for a significant number of years—far too many years—and I commend the predecessor of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Aaron Bell, on his tireless campaigning, over the four years that he was lucky enough to be in this House, in search of a solution. Aaron Bell worked with his constituents to seek a way forward by trying to hold to account not only the operator of Walleys Quarry but the regulator and enforcer, the Environment Agency. He was also instrumental in working with the Stop the Stink campaign, and I am sure that the new hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will continue the good work of his predecessor, as he has done by securing this very debate.

I was lucky enough to be a Minister in what is probably the best Department in Government for a short time, from November 2023 to the general election. In that time, I visited Newcastle-under-Lyme and Silverdale to meet campaigners, local councillors, residents and the previous MP, to hear directly from them about the negative consequences that Walleys Quarry was having, and I deeply sympathised with the points that they made. As a result of those meetings, I made it clear that the Environment Agency over a period of time had failed in its duties and failed local residents. On the strength of what has been said today and despite the, to be frank, repeated warnings given to the Environment Agency by many, including myself when I was lucky enough to be in the Department, it seems that the agency’s attitude is that the operator will clean up its act by itself—which is simply not the case. Residents’ concerns about toxic fumes have been raised since 2012, albeit largely ignored by the Environment Agency as the regulator, meaning that the ongoing situation continues to have a substantial negative impact on the community, not just economically but on its health and wellbeing.

The reality is that the Environment Agency’s actions have gone nowhere near far enough, and in my view the landfill site needs to be closed altogether. The Minister will know that those are exactly the points that I was trying to put across to the Environment Agency during my short time in the Department. As she will also know, given that she seems to have been sufficiently briefed on the previous meetings, I was so disheartened by the Environment Agency’s actions that I requested weekly meetings with its team to understand sufficiently what actions it was taking as the regulator and the enforcer. Public hearings held in July demonstrated the serious public health issues arising from fumes from the site, with Staffordshire’s director of health and care highlighting the negative impact on public health and the risk that the noxious gases pose for health, both in the short and long term.

When I met residents, one of the other huge concerns they rightly raised, along with the direct negative impact on them, was the impact on the local economy, not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme but across the wider Stoke-on-Trent area. Businesses, cafés, shops, a sports centre, a sports club that I was lucky enough to visit and even a local school are all being negatively impacted. Again, had the Environment Agency taken robust action, it could have reduced the financial, environmental and social impacts.

[Adam Jogee]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments to me and my family. I was going to be a bit meaner to him than I may now be—I am my father’s son—but I do want to ask him two questions. First, in February 2024, a few weeks after the current Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), visited Newcastle, the hon. Gentleman also quite rightly visited, and he said that no options were off the table. What did that mean? Secondly, does he think the Environment Agency has the powers it needs to properly get this sorted?

[Robbie Moore]

I distinctly recall saying from the Dispatch Box that no options were off the table, and that specifically meant that, in my view, the site should be closed. Officials will know that those points were being made to officials in the Department and at the Environment Agency, but officials will present other challenges, to do with legal implications and the processes that need to be followed. I am sure that the current Minister will have to deal with those challenges before the Environment Agency is able to take any further action, but there was clear advocacy from the previous ministerial team that Walleys Quarry should be closed. I wish the Minister well and am prepared to work with her to ensure that that solution can be reached.

The Environment Agency also singularly failed to find a solution to sufficiently safeguard the local community against the hazard presented by hydrogen sulphide, a gas released when waste breaks down on the site. For far too long, residents have had to put up with a strong eggy smell, which I experienced for myself when I visited the site. In my view, urgent and decisive action from the Environment Agency is required right now. I certainly made those frustrations known when I was in the Department, as I have indicated.

The Environment Agency has expressed its sympathy for local residents, but now is not the time for sympathy; it is time for action, not words. The Environment Agency put in place regular inspections to monitor levels of hydrogen sulphide. However, the latest data suggests mass under-reporting of the extent of the gas, and that the levels at the site were on average 80% higher than reported by the Environment Agency over a two-year period. The Environment Agency’s response to that latest failure on its part has been to apologise again and to announce another public meeting—yet again, words not actions. We all know that data collection is incredibly important for an enforcer to be able to take action, but the Environment Agency has failed in this simple task and, in my view, has failed to put monitoring points in appropriate locations around the Walleys Quarry site.

[Gareth Snell]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), there have been 10 years of data. I know because I used to ring the EA frequently in 2010, when I was in my constituency surgeries in the library in Silverdale and we could smell the smell. What more does the former Minister believe he would have needed in order to give a closure notice? Given that we all seem to agree that there has been a decade of failure by the Environment Agency, when he was Minister, what did he do to try to work out what the internal failings were, so that other communities that may have these problems do not have the long period of terribleness that we have had?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

As I said, monitoring is incredibly important, because we need the data to be able to hold those who pollute to account, and the regulator needs the data to be able to take appropriate enforcement action, as the Environment Agency should do. But that data has to be collected appropriately, which the EA has not done, in my view, and the datasets have to be accurate. Looking back, there was a calibration issue with the datasets that were being collected, which meant that the Environment Agency had to issue a further apology. In my view, it is completely unacceptable.

That raises the bigger question, which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has already asked, whether the Environment Agency is fit for purpose in its current format. All the challenges that I am laying out today are things that I experienced in my short months at the Department. This is simply not good enough action by the Environment Agency. As I have stipulated, the site should be closed. Again, that is something that I advocated while in the Department. As the hon. Member said, this leads to the bigger question: is the Environment Agency fit for purpose?

In the debate earlier in the week I put some questions to the Minister and sought a response, and I will do so again today. If she is not able to give me an answer now—I quite appreciate that she may not be—I kindly ask that she puts her responses in writing, for the benefit of all of us in the Chamber and the residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I note that I have previously put similar questions to officials.

Will the Minister update the House on the current situation at Walleys Quarry, and is she content with the advice that she is being given by the Environment Agency? Does she agree that Walleys Quarry should be closed with immediate effect, as has been strongly advocated by previous Ministers in the Department?

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentlemen is in a position of unparalleled knowledge compared with all of us, having been the Minister, at which time he advocated for immediate closure. I think the quarry should be closed immediately, and he has said that he does. What was he missing as the Minister? What lever that was just out of reach would have immediately brought about the closure of the site? If legislative change is needed then we can write that Bill here and now and take it to the House and try to get it passed, but the hon. Gentleman has been there and knows why it could not happen. What else would he have needed to get the job done?

[Robbie Moore]

In my view, it came down to process. There is a process that needs to be followed, with a suspension notice being served in the first instance to reasonably give the operator the chance to sort itself out. In my view, that process is not sufficient to satisfy residents, businesses and the wider community, but it was advocated to me that the process needed to be adhered to before we could get to the position of issuing a closure notice. I wish the Minister extremely well, and she will have my full support in trying to achieve a closure notice at speed. That is the only way of issuing a clear warning to the operator that if it pollutes, it cannot get away. The taxpayer should not have to pay for it.

Coming back to my questions, how many other landfill sites are being impacted by illegal waste dumping? How many other sites are there where local residents are being negatively impacted by pollutants and emissions?

[Adam Jogee]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will not, because I think the Minister needs 20 minutes to sum up, and it is only fair to give that to her.

Does the Minister agree that when landfill sites, or sites of a similar nature, are given initial planning permission, a bond should be put in place to deal with remediation costs and compensation payments, for example, so that if a dodgy operator like the one we have seen at Walleys Quarry does not adhere to the conditions it has signed up to or goes bust, local residents in Newcastle-upon-Lyme or elsewhere are not exposed to the costs?

[Adam Jogee]

It is “under”—Newcastle-under-Lyme.

[Robbie Moore]

I apologise—it is because I worked in Newcastle-upon-Tyne for a long time.

I believe that such a bond was not put in place when John Prescott awarded the initial planning consent for the site. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer should not have to pay a penny towards the costs associated with the remediation or clean-up works, or indeed the enforcement programme that the Environment Agency should carry out when we know an operator is in the wrong? It must be the polluter that pays, not the constituents of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme or the local council. Further, does the Minister agree that when we talk about “polluter pays”, any fine that the EA imposes should include an element of compensation for those who have been impacted? Finally, does she think that the Environment Agency is fit for purpose in its current format as a robust regulator and enforcer?

I genuinely wish the Minister well on this issue. She has my full support in seeking a closure notice for the site.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

We all have a lot to learn from each other. I offer those statistics in the spirit of co-operation and encouraging good practice.

Between January 2023 and 2 August 2024, there were 21 substantiated illegal waste sites in the Staffordshire area, and all 21 of them have been stopped from operating, the vast majority within three months of being reported to the Environment Agency. Five have been fully cleaned up, while the risks posed by the remaining sites are being managed and monitored.

The Environment Agency regulates more than 10,000 waste permits, the majority of which are in the top compliance bands. However, I am aware that 3%, or about 300, of those permits attract public interest because they are not in compliance. Those disproportionately take up resource, energy and regulatory activity. I stressed to the Environment Agency officials whom I spent time with today ahead of this debate that my top priority is to take action to bring those sites back into compliance and, where necessary, to embark on criminal investigations.

Walleys Quarry, one such non-compliant site, has been a source of concern for residents over several years, as we have heard. This morning, I was informed that it is the worst-performing waste site in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked for a meeting with me, and I am only too happy to meet him. I shall ask Environment Agency and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials to be in the room for that meeting, so that we can have a full discussion and get to the bottom and the heart of what is going on.

The Environment Agency has carried out significant activity since 2021—more than for any other regulated site—and a criminal investigation is also under way, about which I cannot say more for fear of prejudicing those inquiries. However, the local residents and councillors who are in the Public Gallery today have had to put up with unacceptable levels of hydrogen sulphide. Interestingly, that substance comes from the plasterboard that we all have; it happens when it is broken down and smashed up. As we try to design in a circular economy, we must think about what materials we use in our home and what happens to them, because there is no such place as “away” at their end of life. It is not acceptable for odours to reach a level that causes serious offence to local communities. I am pressing the Environment Agency to keep all regulatory options under review and look at its enforcement and sanctions policy.

[Robbie Moore]

Could the Minister pick up my specific question about the closure of the site? In his shadow role before the election, I believe the Secretary of State wanted to advocate for closure, as I do. What is the Minister’s view on that?

[Mary Creagh]

I have not had specific advice on closure. It is clear that there is a criminal investigation under way, and we have to let that take its course.

Let us look at waste crime. In recent years there has been an increase in the involvement of serious and organised criminal gangs in the waste sector. That is of the greatest concern to me; it goes back to the perfect storm of a broken waste system. The joint unit for waste crime brings together the Environment Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—because in our experience, criminals never break the law in just one area; they always break it in several areas—the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from the UK and other partners to share intelligence, and disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. There has been progress to target organised crime groups, and this model is respected internationally. The issue is not unique to the United Kingdom.

The unit has supported or led more than 90 operations since April 2020 and has worked with 133 partner organisations. It has had 301 days of action, which have resulted in 174 associated arrests by other agencies. The Environment Agency recently announced the formation of its national enforcement service—a new economic crime unit that targets the money and assets of waste criminals. It will target the financial motivation behind offending and use financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including OCGs, to operate. It has all gone a bit “Line of Duty” there; I will crack on.

I also urge members of the public: it is incumbent on every one of us to report waste crime where we see it in our communities. It is under-reported. When someone comes and says, “I can take that waste away for you for 20 quid,” it is so important that we ask to see their waste permit. When someone asks a farmer or a landowner, “Can I store these bales on your land?” and says it is just a bit of plastic or a bit of soil, I urge them to be curious: have they actually got a permit? Is it really soil or is it shredded down plastics? The money is moving from legitimate waste operators and going to these organised crime groups.

We know the impact that this issue has on people’s lives. We are determined to reform this sector. That starts with reform of the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime, which means those transporting or making decisions about waste must demonstrate that they are competent to make those decisions, face background checks when applying for permits and display permit numbers on their advertising. We will make it easier for regulators to take actions against criminals, and easier for us as householders to identify legitimate waste businesses.

The reform will remove three exemptions, which is critical because these are the highest problem areas. Those exemptions are for dismantling end of life vehicles, treating end of life tyres—again, the risk of fire is huge—and recovery of scrap metal dealers. I remember a case in my former constituency of Wakefield where a scrap metal dealer went bust owing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs £60 million. To my grievous disappointment, not a single person was prosecuted or went to prison for essentially theft from the taxpayer. We will introduce greater record-keeping requirements for all waste exemption holders, and impose limits and controls on how exemptions can be managed on site.

To conclude, this Government are clear: we are committed to bringing waste criminals to justice. We have long-term ambitions to rebuild the waste sector and to create a circular economy, and we are committed to tackling both waste crime and, as exemplified by Walley’s Quarry, poor performance at regulated sites.

I know that the Environment Agency is committed to continuing its work with partners nationally and locally, and I thank it for working against the odds and in a very difficult funding environment over the last 14 years. The crime that we are discussing today is predominantly an urban crime and I think that under the previous Government there was a neglect of urban areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked for deeds not words. We will follow the principle that the polluter pays. We will find the polluters; we are coming for them and we will track them down.

Sheep Farming

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) for securing this really important debate. He represents a beautiful constituency in a county I know very well, having worked there for many a year. I welcome him to this place. I also welcome the Minister to his place in probably the best Department in Government.

Before I start, I want to thank our farming community, not only in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in West Yorkshire, but across the whole United Kingdom. We all know that farmers work tirelessly throughout the year in all weathers. Having lambed many a yow in the cold winter months up in Yorkshire, I know just how hard our farmers work.

I echo colleagues’ comments highlighting just how important the sheep farming industry is. It not only contributes £1.8 billion to our economy but provides the high-quality food on our plates and sustainable textiles on our backs—perhaps even Northumberland tartan, as the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned.

I support the National Sheep Association’s calls to maintain, if not enhance, the UK’s flock. I want sheep farming to be supported and developed, not cut back. So much of our natural landscape is as it is because of the hard graft of sheep farmers across our nation. We owe it to them to keep food at the centre of what we do in this place, in the knowledge that supported food production goes hand in hand with our duties to the environment.

During the previous Conservative Government, I was proud to play my part in making much progress in the sheep sector, both in my time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and as a Minister. We made strong progress in cracking down on livestock worrying—a blight on our farmers, who have enough to deal with without having to worry about inconsiderate dog owners. I only hope the new Administration will pick up that legislation where it was left off and not scrap it, as is being reported in the farming press.

We also delivered the biggest change in a generation in how the Government work with farmers, following our exit from the European Union. Replacing the common agricultural policy with a framework that works for farmers, food producers and the country has been a huge task. Although I would be the first to accept that the sustainable farming incentive and other schemes are not perfect, they are major milestones in delivering a farming subsidy support scheme that works for sheep farmers and other farmers across the country as the basic payment scheme is phased out.

I was pleased that, at the National Sheep Association’s Sheep Event 2024, the Minister indicated that the new Administration will not overturn those schemes. However, it is now being widely reported in the media that the Labour Administration are intent on cutting the farming budget, which not only will have dire consequences for the farming industry, but will negatively impact our nation’s food security agenda and efforts to enhance the environment. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Will he provide some clarity on his intentions for the farming budget? The farming budget needs at least to be maintained, if not enhanced, and be properly ringfenced and secured to provide certainty for our farming community.

The harsh climate of our upland farmland will always be a challenge for any business in the area, but that is why we must support our sheep farming sector, which is able to turn land that would otherwise be uneconomical into productive land that contributes valuable produce to the economy. I urge the Government to ensure that the new expanded offer for the sustainable farming incentive is quickly rolled out, and that much clarity and reassurance is provided through the extended offers that were announced.

I know from my time in Government that the DEFRA team and their officials have been working incredibly hard on this proposal. I thank the officials, including Janet Hughes, who has a huge amount of respect from the farming community. We all want reassurance and clarity to be provided on those extended offers so that they can be taken up in full.

With a new Government, we must look to the future and at how we can further support this dynamic and ever-changing sector. As a guiding principle, I urge the new Labour Government to trust the excellent sheep farmers across the country, who know so much about what they are doing and have the best intentions. They are keen to get on with the job, and we have a duty to support them without burdening them with unreasonable red tape.

A clear example of that is the ongoing efforts to combat bluetongue. It is in everybody’s interest to combat that disease, and I hope that the DEFRA team will deliver effective support for sheep farmers, particularly with regard to proper surveillance. I know that bluetongue is of deep concern to our sheep farming community. Like the National Sheep Association, I urge British farmers to remain vigilant for signs of bluetongue, as I am aware that around 50 suspected cases have been reported within a week, and restriction zones have been implemented in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk to limit the spread of the virus. Will the Government support the development of a licensed bluetongue vaccine and work with the industry to deploy it as soon as possible?

Moving on to another area of concern, I am aware of the pressure in the farming sector to reduce regulation around carcase splitting. Of course, any Government’s first concern is rightly to ensure that food stocks in the UK remain safe for the broader public, but I urge the Government to look at regulation. I would be interested to understand their view on the issue and to hear whether they would consider rolling back carcase-splitting requirements so that farmers are able to maximise value.

Where the Government can really make a direct and positive difference is in the delivery of greater fairness in our food supply chain, to help sheep farmers run successful businesses. The industry-wide consultation in February 2024 provided compelling support for carcase classification. I urge the Government to pick up on that proposal as quickly as possible. It can only be right that, after doing the hard work of raising and caring for their animals, sheep farmers have certainty about the price they can expect to get for them. It is vital that transparency is applied right across the food supply chain, as we have seen in other sectors, including pigs and cattle.

As we look to our domestic supply chain, we must recognise the globalised world we live in and the opportunities and challenges that it brings. Last week, the Prime Minister unveiled the first step in his supposed reset with Europe. Much has been made of what the new relationship might look like. Although promises not to return to the single market or the customs union are welcome, it is possible that farmers could fall foul of EU law under any new arrangement, so I seek the Government’s reassurance about what the new relationship will look like. Complicated and bureaucratic EU animal welfare laws will only damage our sheep farming community, so will the Minister reassure me that none of the four nations across the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will be subject to additional rules, which we have spent much time since 2016 trying to remove ourselves from for the benefit of the sector?

[Jim Allister]

The shadow Minister says that no part of the United Kingdom should be subject to EU rules, but the reality is that Northern Ireland is subject to them. That is the problem: we were never delivered from them. His Government failed to deliver us from them. That is why we have the mess we have.

[Robbie Moore]

Of course, the Windsor framework was an element of trying to address many concerns, not only in the food and farming sector but in other sectors. Although it is indeed not perfect, I am interested to see what the new Government want to do on the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.

There is much to do to support our sheep farming sector. It is vital that the new Government move quickly to continue the work of the Conservative Government and deliver a vision for upland and lowland sheep farming that will give businesses the ability to plan, produce and thrive.

Fly-tipping

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for securing this important debate. I also take the opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place.

Having just defended a majority of slightly more than 2,000, I must say it is fantastic to be re-elected to this place. I am a little relieved that I am still here, even though it is now sitting on the other side of the House as a shadow Minister.

Often, it is here in the Westminster Hall Chamber that we have a real opportunity to focus on issues that matter at a micro local level. It is great specifically to be discussing an important issue that matters to all our constituents. I will start by echoing the comments made so far in this debate: fly-tipping is a blatant attack on our communities, and it damages local habitats and the environment, creates a danger for local wildlife, and places an unfair economic burden and cost on those who are forced to clean it up.

While in government—including in my short time in the Department as a Minister, when I was pleased to see through a number of steps to tackle this issue—we gave tougher powers and grants to tackle fly-tipping hotspots. We increased the maximum penalty that councils can issue for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000, and we made sure that the money was ringfenced specifically for enforcement and clean-up. We increased the penalty for householders who give waste to fly-tippers from £400 to £600, and we worked with stakeholders to co-design a fly-tipping toolkit to help landowners, councils and businesses to tackle this common issue.

We also increased the scrutiny of how councils were using the powers awarded to them through the publication of a fly-tipping enforcement league table, so that there was more transparency in the system. Since those measures were introduced, statistics show that the tide has begun to turn, with fly-tipping on public land down for the second year in a row. Of course, there is much more to do, and I look forward to working constructively with the new Government to help to build on the substantial action taken in previous years.

The two issues that I will touch on specifically, based on my experience as a constituency MP and in Government, are fly-tipping on private land and the proper use of enforcement. On enforcement, it is paramount that local authorities use the tools and powers that have been awarded to them. As I mentioned, when we were in government we increased the maximum penalty notices for local authorities to utilise, but it is clear that local authorities are not using those powers.

I will not upset the many Members who have mentioned their own councils, so let me begin with statistics from the Labour-run Bradford council that operates in my constituency. In the past year, despite receiving over 15,000 reports of fly-tipping, it has issued only 86 fixed penalty notices. That ranks Bradford 217th out of all local authorities in the country for fixed penalty notices per incident. To compound the issue, that was on the back of it taking action to close household waste and recycling centres not only in my constituency but elsewhere across Bradford. The council has resisted local opposition and kept those centres closed.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will carry on because Government Members have had enough time.

Councils have to make use of the powers that are awarded to them. To put the closures into perspective, if my local authority took the same action as the local authority of the hon. Member for Ealing Southall, it would be able to set the precedent in creating a clear deterrent. In other words, those who pollute must feel the consequences. How does the Minister plan to work with councils such as Bradford to ensure that they properly utilise the powers and resources that were awarded to them under the previous Government? What specific steps will the new Government take to support councils and hold them to account if they do not take action? As many Members have rightly indicated, a national strategy is the right approach, but how does the Minister intend to utilise those powers and the additional powers that she wants to award to local authorities to address the issue?

On the issue of fly-tipping on private land, what additional measures will the Government take to hold people to account when it is not necessarily their fault that fly-tipping has taken place on private land? Could they potentially be awarded for clearing up the mess rather than facing the full force of the law? As many Members have said, collective responsibility is vital, so we must work together with local authorities—with proper law enforcement—community members and all stakeholders to address this issue.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I will stop the Minister after 10 minutes so that I can give the mover of the motion time for a short summing-up speech.

Flood Defences: West Worcestershire

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I think the hon. Member needs to have a word with his Deputy Prime Minister about that. He and I may share some concerns about the ability of Whitehall to determine where concrete is poured across our country.

Let me turn to two schemes that are still not built. They were the subject of my Adjournment debate back in 2020. I think that we can make progress in this Parliament on the Tenbury Wells and Severn Stoke flood defence schemes. I would like today’s Minister to be the Minister who sees those schemes completed. Tenbury Wells is the most beautiful town, but it was built on a floodplain centuries ago, so protecting it is a very complicated project that comprises flood gates, bunds and walls. After my Adjournment debate in 2020, to my delight a funded scheme was agreed, with £4.9 million allocated to move it forward. On top of that, last year I secured another £2.5 million from the frequently flooded communities fund, because inflation had taken its toll and construction costs had spiralled. We are now in a situation where some of those millions have been spent on consultants and advisers, but the flood defence scheme itself is still stuck on the drawing board and has not yet gone to planning. I ask the Minister for an update on that.

Severn Stoke—the clue is in the name—is another community that sits on a floodplain. The village, its popular pub, its church, and the busy A38 road are frequently flooded. In fact, the village hall had to be pulled down because the parish could no longer afford to insure the property. The church is now struggling with insurance. In the last Parliament, I was pleased to win funding for that scheme as well, including from the frequently flooded communities fund, and arranged the transport of local topsoil to the place free of charge, but I would now also describe that scheme as stalled. In fact, there is a forlorn pile of topsoil in Severn Stoke that sat there while the village flooded again last winter. Will the Minister tell me how we can get both schemes moving again and, importantly, how we can get them finished?

In April, I had a very helpful meeting with the Environment Agency chief executive Philip Duffy and the Environment Agency team. I had another one scheduled for June, but of course the general election intervened. I ask the Minister whether we can reschedule that meeting at the earliest moment, to identify how to unblock the two schemes. I know that the last Government were on track to spend over £5 billion on flood defences over the spending review period.

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

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech, and making a very strong case for why we need to invest in flood defence schemes. Under the last Conservative Administration, we increased the amount of investment in flood defence schemes from £2.6 billion to £5.2 billion over the next six-year period. Does she agree that the new Government should adhere to those funding increases so that we can ensure that schemes such as the ones for which she is advocating are dealt with and funded?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He points to a fact that I acknowledge: cumulatively, we have become more resilient to flooding in West Worcestershire over the last 14 years, but there are still these two schemes. That was going to be my next question to the Minister: will she confirm that the new Government will continue with the same level of spending that my hon. Friend mentioned? Is there anything that I could do, other than leading debates such as this and meeting with the chief executive of the Environment Agency, that would help locally to unblock any of the issues?

I know that these schemes, particularly the one in Tenbury Wells, are complicated. I just want the Environment Agency to be able to find its way through the obstacles. The local community knows that in order to make the omelette that is the flood defences of Tenbury Wells, a few eggs will need to be broken, with a few road closures at times and potentially some loss of road space down some side roads. I just want to say on behalf of the community that it is prepared to put up with that level of inconvenience and some traffic disruption for a while in order to protect its beautiful town. As can be seen from the other examples in West Worcestershire that I have mentioned, particularly Upton upon Severn, the long-term benefit of protecting the town is immeasurable.

Will the Minister join me in an effort of shared persistence and determination to protect these two communities by finally getting the two schemes built, preferably before the inevitable arrival of the next serious floods? Finally, will she confirm that she will press ahead with the expanded offer of the farming recovery fund? Farmers in my constituency and elsewhere think it is very important that the offer includes those who experienced damage due to extreme rainfall, and not just those who experienced flooded land.

Bathing Water

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Written Statements

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

Designated bathing waters are coastal or inland waters that are used by large numbers of bathers and have facilities to promote and support bathing as set out in the Bathing Water Regulations 2013. They are an important public amenity and can be valuable assets for local communities.



Following an application round and a period of public consultation, we are today announcing the designation of 27 new bathing waters—12 rivers, six estuarine sites, five coastal sites and four lakes—taking the total number in England to 451, the highest ever. Despite new stricter standards for bathing water classifications being introduced in 2015, last year 90% of bathing waters were classified as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’—up from 76% in 2010.



Designating a site as a bathing water means the site will benefit from a new programme of bathing water quality monitoring by the Environment Agency, with a focus on working with partners collaboratively to identify any pollution sources and to put in place actions to address these issues. This can bring social, economic, leisure and health benefits.



We are continually working to improve and modernise the bathing waters system. That is why I am also today announcing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to consult on a series of potential reforms for England to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013. The proposed changes will drive work to improve bathing water quality, enhance monitoring, and enable more flexibility around the dates of the bathing water monitoring season—the current bathing water monitoring offer will be maintained as a minimum. These changes will allow us to increase monitoring outside of the bathing water season in the future, to better embed water quality improvements within processes and to prevent automatic de-designation of existing bathing water sites.



DEFRA will also seek public and stakeholder views on extending the definition of ‘bathers’ to include a wider range of water users in addition to swimmers, such as rowers, kayakers and paddle boarders, and on allowing multiple monitoring points, instead of a single monitoring point, at each bathing water site.



Full details of the proposed reforms will be available for consideration in due course, as part of the consultation process. The consultation will be open to submissions over the summer, with the Government response to follow later in the year.



Alongside these reforms, the Government remain committed to improving water quality through the Plan for Water, our comprehensive strategy which sets out how we will deliver clean and plentiful water for people, businesses and nature through more investment, tighter regulation and more effective enforcement. As part of this, we have set stringent targets for water companies to reduce the use of storm overflows through the storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which is driving the largest infrastructure programme in water company history—£60 billion over 25 years. This includes front-loading action in particularly important and sensitive sites, including bathing waters; by 2035, water companies will have improved all storm overflows discharging near every designated bathing water.



We will consider all responses to the consultation and use them to inform our ambitions to reform and improve the framework for managing bathing waters in England. The next bathing water application round in England will commence in spring 2025.

[HCWS455]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen coastal defences.

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

We are investing approximately £1.3 billion of our £5.6 billion flood and coastal risk management investment programme in coastal projects. They will better protect over 100,000 properties, as well as critical infrastructure. The Environment Agency is also running the £36 million Government-funded coastal transition accelerator programme, which is funding coastal authorities so they can explore how to better support their communities.

[Peter Aldous]

The East Anglian coast has taken a real battering in recent months, and projects such as the Lowestoft flood defence scheme have been delayed. Our region is the most vulnerable to climate change, and is a lead player in delivering net zero for the UK, so will my hon. Friend consider a climate change risk assessment on which a regional coast defence strategy can then be prepared to properly protect homes, businesses, ports, farmland and infrastructure, as well as nurture our unique coastal environment?

[Robbie Moore]

There is no better champion than my hon. Friend on the challenge of coastal erosion. The Environment Agency is developing a new national flood risk assessment and an updated coastal erosion risk map to improve how we access flood risk information and communicate it to our communities. Those new datasets and maps will include the potential impact of climate change on flood risk and coastal erosion, and will help to inform how we better protect homes, businesses, farmland and infrastructure along our coastal communities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

We learned from the Public Accounts Committee report that 500 flood defence projects have been cancelled, just like the one in Lowestoft. Whether the Minister chooses to use the words “cancelled,” “deferred,” “delayed” or “on a long list” makes no difference, because he is still refusing to tell us where those projects are. Why does he insist on holding residents in contempt by not telling them the fate of their local flood defences?

[Robbie Moore]

I and my officials have been reviewing the applications that have been put forward, and announcements will be coming very soon. The Government are investing £1.3 billion in flood defences, which is more than ever before, and we will continue to ensure that we are better protecting coastal communities.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

6. How much funding his Department plans to provide for catchment partnerships in the 2024-25 financial year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to support local authorities to tackle fly-tipping.

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

Nationally, fly-tipping on public land has fallen for the second year in a row, with enforcement actions up by 5%, but we all know the huge detrimental impact that fly-tipping can have on our communities. Fly-tipping fines have more than doubled, and we are now expecting local authorities to reinvest that income in enforcement and cleaning up our streets. We are going further with reforms on how waste carriers are regulated, with the introduction of digital waste tracking to help local authorities continue to crack down on waste crime.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What landowners and the public want is for this to stop. I realise that we have doubled the fines—we have massively increased them again—but may I suggest that all cases should be prosecuted and that prosecutions should be publicised widely, both to reassure victims and to deter perpetrators?

[Robbie Moore]

I could not agree more; promoting the convictions absolutely reassures victims that the Government and local authorities are taking tough action. I know that my hon. Friend has particular concerns about what is happening across the countryside, and DEFRA is funding the national rural crime unit to explore the police’s role in tackling fly-tipping and how that can be optimised, working with local authorities to deal with this crime.

[Steve Tuckwell]

Fly-tipping is a concern for many local residents across Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I would like to pay tribute to Mary in Yiewsley, Bernie in South Ruislip, Wendy in Cowley and Donna from Ruislip Gardens, who all act as community champions in reporting regular fly-tipping. I also need to mention the waste service team at Hillingdon Council, who work tirelessly in responding to regular cases of fly-tipping. However, all of this great work from residents and the council can only go so far, so what further funding and support is available specifically to target fly-tipping hotspots?

[Robbie Moore]

We have provided nearly £1.2 million to help local authorities combat fly-tipping, and our grants are focused on hotspots where they have funded around 200 CCTV cameras, plus other infrastructure including fencing, signage and mobile tips. A further £1 million is due to be released shortly, which will help further tackle these hotspots. I pay tribute to Mary, Wendy and all my hon. Friend’s constituents who are getting involved in helping him.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Many communities in my constituency face the double whammy of coastal tidal flooding and fluvial river flooding. We have seen significant investment in places such as Par and St Blazey through the StARR project—St Austell Bay Resilient Regeneration—which the Minister has been to see. We have recently completed flood defences at Pentewan, but the village of Mawgan Porth remains vulnerable to both river and coastal flooding, and I cannot get any real progress in developing a scheme to reduce flood risk there. Will the Minister meet me to look at what we can do to protect Mawgan Porth?

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

Having been to Cornwall to meet my hon. Friend and see the StARR project for myself, I am more than happy to meet to discuss what more we can do, because I know that he and his colleagues on the local council are championing this scheme as much as they can, and I am more than happy to help.

[Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The sun may be shining today, but it has been a long, cold, wet spring for our farmers. Given the prediction that 17% of crops will be lost, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of farming businesses that will reluctantly stop producing food? How will he ensure that the farmers flood fund reaches all the farmers who desperately need it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

In the past, flooding from the Lady brook and Micker brook, which run through Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme and Cheadle to join the River Mersey, has caused devastation to homes and families. Does my hon. Friend agree that joint working across the region is part of the solution? Will he continue his support for the upper Mersey catchment partnership working?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend has raised that specific case with me before. I am more than happy to meet her to have those conversations at speed, because I know just how valuable projects such as flood alleviation schemes are to her constituents in better protecting more homes.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

North West Leicestershire has benefited enormously from being the heart of the national forest, with millions of trees planted over the past 40 years, much of which are on degraded former colliery land. As desirable as tree planting is, that must be balanced against food security. Does the Minister agree that good agricultural land must be protected to produce good food?

Single-use Plastics

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) for raising this important issue. The Government are dealing with it, and take it extremely seriously.

We all know of the detrimental impact that single-use plastic can have on society. It makes up much of our plastic waste, and pollutes our landscape and harms our wildlife when it leaks into the environment. This plastic eventually breaks down into microplastics, ending up in our soils, our seas and, unfortunately, our food chain.

Our priority is to achieve zero avoidable plastic waste by 2042 and keep plastic in circulation for longer, moving away from a “take, make and throw away” model and towards a circular economy. Single-use plastics do not fit in with the new model and can be particularly problematic, which is why driving a circular economy is incredibly important. They are typically littered or discarded into general waste, rather than being recycled, due to the difficulty in segregating, cleaning and processing them. We want to move away from a culture of single-use plastics and towards one where, if they cannot be designed out, we reuse and repair products as much as possible, before recycling them at the end of their life.

I am sure that all of us, as constituency MPs, have been to many a primary school and heard the challenges brought forward by students, who want us to deal with single-use plastics. They come up with ingenious ideas. This Government are prepared to embrace those ideas and drive the challenge forward. We must recognise, however, that single-use plastics have an important role to play in certain applications. When used in the right way and disposed of correctly, single-use plastics can help us to deliver the best environmental outcome. For example, there is a direct need for single-use plastics for medical or clinical purposes in certain circumstances. We are bringing out policy to drive the circular economy. It is important to take a systematic, evidence-based approach to policy, as we have done thus far, to drive down the use of single-use plastics.

We have already made significant progress in addressing the use of single-use plastics. The latest step, in October 2023, was the Government’s ban on some of these plastics, including cutlery, balloon sticks, expanded polystyrene cups and takeaway food and drink containers—and restrictions on single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays. That builds on measures that we had already put in place. We have one of the world’s toughest bans on microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, which prevents billions of tiny plastic beads from entering the ocean every single year. We also brought in measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, plastic drink containers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds from October 2020, and these restrictions have already had an impact. Straws, stirrers and cotton buds used to be in the top 10 littered items on beaches, but this is no longer the case. Having been involved in many a beach clean-up in my lifetime, I am pleased to see that the use of plastic drink containers, plastic stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds has significantly reduced. I am sure that all of us who have taken part in beach clean-ups are happy that that is the case.

The use of single-use carrier bags in the main supermarkets reduced by over 98% through the introduction of the 5p charge. That represents a decrease of over 7 billion carrier bags. In May 2021, we increased the charge to 10p and extended it to all retailers, building on the success of the policy and creating a level playing field for all businesses. Retailers have donated over £206 million to good causes from the proceeds of the charge since its introduction, and we will continue to review the latest evidence on problematic products in order to take a systematic approach to reducing the number of unnecessary single-use plastic products in circulation.

We have also funded ground-breaking research to address this issue through the £60 million smart sustainable plastic packaging challenge. Supported by a £150 million investment from industry, it seeks to make plastic packaging that is fit for a sustainable future. Through the challenge, we have funded numerous UK universities to innovate and drive cleaner growth across the UK’s plastics packaging and recycling systems. That has supported research on reuse systems that tackle single-use approaches head-on. The Government also support the UK plastics pact, a collaborative initiative to create a circular system that keeps plastic in the economy and out of the natural environment. Business members of the UK plastics pact are responsible for 80% of plastic packaging sold through UK supermarkets, and approximately 50% of the total plastic packaging placed on the UK market.

The impact of single-use plastics can of course be felt across the globe, which is why our work on the global stage is incredibly important. We are working with others, such as the global ghost gear initiative, the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance and the tide turners plastic challenge badge scheme, which helps hundreds of thousands of young people to tackle plastic packaging in their communities. Through our £500 million Blue Planet fund, we are investing in initiatives such as the Global Plastic Action Partnership, to support others in making the transition to a more circular economy.

We know we must go further, which is why we are supporting new global agreements to co-ordinate action on plastics. The UK delegation to the UN environment programme is in Ottawa, Canada, at the fourth negotiation round to develop the first binding UN treaty to end plastic pollution. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her role as Environment Minister, was there in person on Sunday, championing our plastics work abroad, driving progress in these important negotiations, and sharing this Government’s experience of bringing forward legislation quickly, so that others can benefit from a collaborative approach. As a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, the UK is continuously pushing for an ambitious outcome and an effective UN treaty to end plastic pollution by 2040. This includes pushing for a full-lifecycle approach to plastic, designing out unnecessary and problematic single-use plastics, and promoting a circular economy in plastic.

We have further measures to tackle single-use plastics under development. Our incoming collection and packaging reforms, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) referred to, are central to our mission of promoting resource efficiency, moving toward a more circular economy and away from the single-use model. We are putting in place our extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, which introduces measures that incentivise producers to make better decisions and be more sustainable in their design and use of plastic packaging. We will ensure that producers pay the cost of managing the plastic that they put on the market, and will incentivise a reduction in single-use plastics by requiring them to pay higher fees for unsustainable packaging.

The hon. Lady spoke about the deposit return scheme. Today, the UK Government have announced an update on the DRS, setting out next steps and reaffirming our commitment to delivering on this important project. Our scheme will drive the transition to a circular economy by investing in recycling, reducing littering, and offering greater opportunities to collect higher-quality materials for recycling. The update confirms interoperability across UK schemes, the delivery timeframe, and the UK Government’s position on glass drink containers and the implications of divergence from the UK internal market.

After working closely with industry and the devolved Administrations, we have refreshed our programme, and we are moving ahead to introduce deposit return schemes for single-use drink containers across the UK by October 2027. We are committed to ensuring that the schemes work, successively and collectively, across the UK. We are reducing complexity for businesses and consumers, and making sure that consumer behaviour is influenced. We have worked closely with devolved Administrations and agreed alignment on various important points, including labelling, reciprocal returns and container sizes.

Although the hon. Lady did not mention banning wet wipes, I will take the opportunity to do so. On Monday this week, we were pleased to announce that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic across the UK. This follows the public consultation held in autumn 2023, in which 95% of respondents supported the proposed ban.

Wet wipes pollute our environment. They have been found in large quantities in beach litter surveys conducted by DEFRA and the Marine Conservation Society. In the period from 2015 to 2020, an average of 20.4 wet wipes per 100 metres were found on UK beaches surveyed. That is completely unacceptable. Wet wipes, both those containing plastic and those classified as plastic free, were the fifth most found item in the 2022 Great British beach clean, which is, again, unacceptable. In 2023, the Marine Conservation Society reported that 21,000 wet wipes were found on UK beaches. Plastic-containing wet wipes break down into smaller pieces in the water environment, contributing towards microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning the supply and sale of plastic-containing wet wipes will significantly reduce the amount of single-use plastic getting into our environment from that source. That is why we made that announcement this week, which delivers on the Government’s commitments.

As part of the Prime Minister’s vision of creating a smoke-free generation, we are tackling the scourge of single-use disposable vapes. That is why, on 10 April, we set draft legislation before the World Trade Organisation for its members to provide us with any comments. We aim to lay our draft legislation before Parliament before the summer recess.

We are well aware of how much of a scourge littering and fly-tipping can be to our communities. As constituency MPs, we are all constantly challenged by fly-tipping. In my Keighley and Ilkley constituency, Bradford Council’s decision to close our local household waste and recycling centres in Ilkley and Sugden End will unfortunately have a detrimental impact in the Worth valley and across my constituency through increased fly-tipping.

The Government are also doing more to clean up our communities that bear the brunt of single-use plastic through fly-tipping. For example, we have significantly raised the upper limit on fixed penalty notices by £1,000 for fly-tipping, and by £500 for littering. As of 1 April 2024, councils have to spend the income from these penalties on enforcement and clean up.

DEFRA is also funding a post in the national rural crime unit, exploring how the police’s role in tackling fly-tipping can be optimised, with a focus on rural areas. This work is part of the Prime Minister’s antisocial behaviour plan, which sets out how we will support councils in taking tougher action against those who pollute our local environment.

We have taken regulatory action, and have supported voluntary action by businesses. We are planning a raft of new regulatory actions to tackle the scourge of single-use plastics. These actions will have positive outcomes, and will build on the work that we have done to date. We have introduced a carrier bag charge; reduced single-use carrier bag consumption by 98%; banned the sale of wet wipes; banned the sale of single-use straws, plastic containers, stirrers and stem cotton buds; introduced a ban on microbeads in cosmetic products; and rolled out further bans on cutlery, balloon sticks, expanded polystyrene cups and takeaway food and drink containers, and restrictions on single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays.

We are making great strides towards a circular economy through our commitment to collection and packaging reforms. We are collaborating with the devolved Administrations on banning the supply and sale of plastic-containing wet wipes across the UK. We are increasing penalties and cracking down on those who fly-tip and litter, and we are announcing a ban on disposable single-use vapes. We are leading and funding international efforts, as the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, has done this week in Canada. Finally, we are a member of the High Ambition Coalition, which is committed to negotiating an ambitious UN treaty on plastics.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the House and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that this Government are committed to reducing single-use plastics in this country, and are taking action that will have tangible, real-world impacts. I am pleased to be able to highlight from this Dispatch Box all the measures that this Government have taken thus far, and the continued action that we will take to address the scourge of single-use plastics.

Question put and agreed to.

Deposit Return Scheme for Drinks Containers

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Written Statements

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

Today, I am updating colleagues on our progress to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers. The Government are committed to delivering a world-class scheme and will bring forth legislation to progress this as soon as possible when parliamentary time allows.

DRS is a well-established international model, with nearly 60 schemes due to be in operation by the end of 2024. A redeemable deposit is placed on single-use drinks containers, which is refunded upon return of the empty container. The deposit provides a financial incentive for consumers to return empty drinks containers for recycling. We will continue to prioritise reducing inflation and supporting families with the cost of living as the DRS is taken forward and we will consider the appointed deposit management organisation’s approach to setting deposit levels. The DRS will boost recycling levels, reduce the littering of in-scope drinks containers, and turbocharge our transition to a circular economy.

The UK Government have consulted twice—alongside the Northern Ireland Executive and Welsh Government —on the introduction of a DRS: first in 2019 and again in 2021, with the latest Government response published in January 2023. Since then, my officials have been working closely with their devolved Administration counterparts on the steps needed to achieve interoperable schemes that work across the UK.

Extensive engagement has been undertaken to explore various proposals and identify compromises. Together, we have successfully reached alignment on: joint registration and reporting, labelling, reciprocal returns, deposit level, minimum container size, and low volume sales.

There is an outstanding issue regarding the scope of materials in DRS. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) in Northern Ireland and the UK Government agree that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles, steel and aluminium cans will be included in our DRS, and that glass drink containers will be excluded when the scheme launches. The Scottish Government have agreed to commence DRS in Scotland on this same basis to ensure the schemes move forward.

It remains my view that including glass in any UK DRS will create undue complexity for the drinks industry and it increases storage and handling costs for retailers. Glass containers are heavy and fragile, making them more difficult for consumers to return and receive the deposit they have paid, potentially forcing up the cost of their shopping. Moreover, glass is littered less: the Keep Britain Tidy litter composition analysis of 2020 presented that 55% of litter was from PET plastic and metal drinks containers, compared to just 4% from glass drinks containers. We want to work with industry on an ambitious re-use and refill initiative and will provide further detail shortly.

The Welsh Government are taking a different approach: they intend to include glass when their scheme launches. We will continue our conversations with Welsh Government, but if their position does not change, we will reiterate the duty to protect the UK internal market and facilitate free trade within the UK so that businesses can continue trading unhindered across the UK and ensure better prices and choice for consumers, particularly in the context of the current cost of living pressures. There are no plans to exclude any DRS from the UK Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIM) now that there is maximum possible alignment and interoperability across the UK to protect businesses and consumers. However, any application for an exclusion would be considered on the evidence presented.

As it stands, when our DRS launches, businesses and consumers will be protected by the market access principles of the UKIM Act for the sale of drinks in glass bottles across the UK. In plain terms, this means that drinks in glass containers made or imported into England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not be subject to a Welsh DRS which includes glass.

As stated in the consultation response published in January 2023, launching a DRS in October 2025 was a stretching target date. Following extensive engagement with industry, who will be responsible for delivering the DRS, and a review of international approaches to DRS implementation, additional time will be needed to efficiently and effectively roll out the schemes across the UK. With the agreement of Ministerial colleagues across the devolved Administrations, the DRS will go live in October 2027. Until then, we are committed to engaging with industry and working with a deposit management organisation candidate(s) to finalise the next steps towards DRS implementation.

We will continue to work with industry, our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, and other relevant stakeholders to deliver a DRS across the UK that works for businesses, communities, and consumers.

[HCWS427]

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for inviting me to be on the Bill Committee; I very much hope she does not come to regret it. I am interested in the Bill both in a practical sense—we all want to see livestock properly protected—and as someone who is, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, a veteran of the kept animals Bill. I will come back to that in a minute, because some of the issues that have been raised were addressed in that Bill.

I will not delay the Committee by discussing the harm that is done. I echo the points that have been made. The harm was certainly raised by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), on Second Reading, when he detailed a number of cases in offering the Opposition’s full support for the Bill, which I echo.

It will not come as any surprise to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal that I make the point again that we were discussing the kept animals Bill some two and a half years ago. I was delighted that she gave me the first explanation that I have heard for its withdrawal, but I am not convinced by it. That Bill was an extraordinary collection of things in the first place, and the only additions that I recall being made were some amendments—unhelpful ones, I suspect, from the Government’s point of view—from Conservative Back Benchers. It was withdrawn, and we have not had the relevant protections for two and a half years, due to political management issues in the Conservative party. Leaving that aside, there were important points in that Bill, some of which have been brought forward in private Members’ Bills, although that is a chancy way of doing things.

I was fortunate to find the bundle of papers from that period in my office earlier. I am glad that I did because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, the original kept animals Bill was a very different piece of legislation. It was much more comprehensive and introduced the notion of control orders and disqualification orders, which I think would very much address the points that have been raised. I am not clear why a different approach has been taken with this Bill.

The kept animals Bill would have effectively replaced the 1953 Act, but this Bill amends it and is quite different as a consequence. That includes the lack of a debate such as the one we had then—I am sure Members will remember it—about not just the control orders and disqualification orders but the very definition of “worrying livestock” in the 1953 Act. That led to a lengthy and complicated discussion about whether people should be expected to keep their dog on a lead when close to livestock. I am not sure why that has not been reintroduced, either. The then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), declined our amendments, but we were strongly of the view that that would send a very strong message to people that if they are close to livestock, their dog should be on a lead. I would like us to return to that discussion, if possible, and consider including that provision in this Bill.

More could have been done for those reasons, but, having said all that, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this Bill. We support it and I wish it well as it progresses through the House, but it would be good to strengthen it on Report, if possible.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this incredibly important Bill. From the contributions we have heard in this debate, we know just how impactful it could be on constituents who have unfortunately experienced livestock worrying or livestock attacking.

I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for trying to improve the Bill as it moves through the House. “Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare”, published in 2021, set out our plans, aims and ambitions across animal welfare. It set out the commitments that we are focused on pursuing to deliver a better life for animals in this country and abroad. The Bill supports our commitments to ensure that new powers are available to the police so that they can respond efficiently and proactively to the worrying and attacking of livestock by dogs.

The Bill’s purpose is to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It will strengthen police powers and extend the location and species that are within scope of that Act. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock can have awful impacts. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or death. Our own family farm—I refer Members to my declaration of interest—has experienced sheep worrying and sheep attacking, so I know from experience how detrimental it can be not only to the financial measures of a business but to health and wellbeing. We must also consider the impact of the inability to protect one’s own livestock. Livestock can also suffer wider tragic impacts as a result of livestock worrying, including abortion. Such impacts go beyond animals and their welfare. As I have said, they will also have a direct impact on farmers and lead to financial loss.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal raised a case relating to the difference between attacking and worrying. Paragraph 1 of the schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act and addresses that specifically. Attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock, to recognise the violent nature of such offences.

Statistics from the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society show that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023. That was up by nearly 30% compared with the previous year, which demonstrates why the Bill is so important. In addition, a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association found that 70% of farmers had experienced sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. Some 95% of the 305 sheep farmers surveyed said that they experienced up to 10 cases of sheep worrying every year.

The Bill will improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively by extending powers of seizure and modifying entry powers. It also introduces new powers to take samples and impressions from livestock and the suspected dogs. That should facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect evidence, which, in turn, should improve the rate of successful prosecutions and hopefully reduce the risk of further incidents.

The Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where the offence may take place to include roads or paths. As Committee members have mentioned, it is important to move livestock from one field to another but attacks can happen when that transition is taking place. The Bill addresses the point of roads and paths being considered.

The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying to create separate offences for attacks on livestock and the worrying of livestock, in recognition that both attacking and worrying livestock are serious and devastating. I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. I note the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, however, about other species that could be included, such as ostriches, should things change in future and should farming practices include other species. There may be a wish for that to be considered on Report.

I turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. Other Committee members referred to it and expressed support for higher levels of fines for the offence of livestock worrying. The current maximum fine that may be imposed in any case is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000. I understand that my right hon. Friend is keen to amend that fine to provide the courts with the appropriate flexibility to impose a higher fine where that is warranted. We as a Government agree that increasing the fine will serve as an additional deterrent to help to reduce the likelihood of future livestock worrying.

As drafted, however, the amendment is out of step with the current fine guidance as it refers to level 5 fines, when the practice since 2015 has been to provide for unlimited fines rather than level 5 fines. It also includes a tiered approach to take account of reoffending, which the courts can already supply under the Sentencing Council guidelines on aggravating and mitigating factors. As my right hon. Friend referenced, my officials will work with her as the Bill progresses to Report stage, before it comes back to the House, so we can table a revised amendment that will deliver on the desired intent to increase the fines that courts can issue to unlimited, and to act as a deterrent.

I am aware of the support for animal welfare in this country and the interest that the matter continues to receive. The strength of feeling has been apparent again from the discussions that we have heard. I will make a couple of additional points. On common land, the definition of agricultural land in the 1953 Act does not expressly reference common land but it does include land used for grazing, and therefore common land could be in scope of the Bill. Ultimately, it remains a matter for the courts to decide if the land in question is in scope in any particular case, but our interpretation is that common land could be determined by the courts to be in scope as grazing land.

On the shadow Minister’s point about dogs being kept on leads, the Bill does not cover that and, from our experience, there is good reason for that. The Bill deals with having control of dogs, but as Committee members may know, it is not right in every circumstance to have signage that specifically relates to keeping dogs on leads. I am aware of circumstances in Yorkshire where signage has stipulated that dogs must be kept on leads, but then someone might keep a dog on a lead and take it into a field full of cattle. If there are young calves, there will, of course, be mother cows that will want to protect their calves. If the dog owner keeps their dog on a lead and does not let go, there is a risk that the owner will also be put at risk if a mother and calf become separated and the mother wants to take down the dog. It is therefore not right in every circumstance.

That is why dogs being kept on leads does not fall in the scope of the Bill and has not been progressed at this stage. Of course, I would always refer people to the countryside code, which deals with the challenges that have been raised. The Bill builds on the Government’s ambitious programme of animal welfare reforms, and we are very pleased to support it.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

On disqualification, will the Minister go back to the Department and say to his officials that we ought to look at whether committing an offence under the 1953 Act should make someone eligible for disqualification from dog ownership? It would be a simple amendment that could be introduced in this private Member’s Bill, and I sense that there is widespread support for the proposal. If there is a good reason not to do it, the Committee and the House should of course listen to that, but I noticed that he was not going to deal with it—I hope he will forgive me; I may have been premature.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I was just about to talk about the implications of the experience of the Dawe family in his constituency, which was a horrendous scenario where 27 ewes and lambs were attacked—I assume there will have been multiple scenarios where disqualification would quite rightly have applied. While disqualification is not covered by the Bill, it is something that I will consider with officials for the next stage. There may be reasons why that is not in scope of the Bill, but I am absolutely willing to take that away and consider it with officials, as it has been rightly referenced by my right hon. and learned Friend.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. We have talked a lot about fines and penalties, but could he advise me whether the court has the power to direct compensation to be paid to the farmers? In many of these cases, the value of livestock is much greater than any fine that can be levied. Of course, the farmer does not get access to the fine money, but they may well need compensation for their business to continue to be viable.

[Robbie Moore]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is quite right that the Bill does not deal with that circumstance. Courts will be given the ability through sentencing guidelines to take into account unlimited fines through an amendment that will be introduced on Report, which the Government have committed to; it would therefore be up to the courts to implement that. He is right to reference the fact that the money from such fines will not then be distributed to the farmer, and it will therefore be up to the farmer who has been impacted negatively by sheep worrying or a sheep attack to seek compensation through civil means rather than through the courts. It is therefore outside the scope of the Bill.

As I said, the Government are wholly in support of the Bill and we will be considering further amendments that will be introduced on Report. The measures are vital in tackling livestock worrying and will greatly strengthen the existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for bringing forward the Bill.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. With a former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, present, I am conscious that the devil will be in the detail on aspects of law. It is my understanding that disqualification from ownership should be possible, certainly in England. It is technically an issue of animal welfare, which is devolved, so there is added complication there. However, I am happy to explore this further with the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that it is still possible to achieve the outcome that he seeks, whether through this legislation or otherwise.