Government Support for the RSPCA

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for leading this debate and for setting out the detail and information so well. She obviously has a passion for animals, which I share.

The RSPCA is celebrating its 200th birthday this year. It is the first animal welfare charity to be founded in the world, so the impact of what it has done over 200 years is incredible. With its network of agencies and branches, it paved the way in tackling animal cruelty and neglect and worked closely alongside Government to change laws and create a better place for all kinds of animals, so it is great to be here to celebrate and support it.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

In my area, the Brent Knoll animal centre, a wonderful part of the RSPCA, rehomes dogs, cats, rabbits, ferrets and other small animals, and it is always full, but a lot of people do not understand that such centres are not part of the RSPCA’s main structure and are not funded centrally. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that they are locally funded through donations and the time and money of volunteers?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Yes, I am well aware of the volunteers and the fundraising. We attend many events in our constituencies for giving to the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said that we are often called a nation of animal lovers, and of course we are. In all my life—and it is a pretty long one—I cannot remember not having a dog. I am from Ballywalter, and we had Pekinese, collies, terriers and latterly springer spaniels. It has almost been an evolution from house dogs to dogs that we use for hunting.

The RSPCA has the equivalent of 361 full-time frontline officers, 233 inspectors and 128 animal rescue officers. Many of us have been touched by the advertisements on TV about cruelty against animals; it really breaks our hearts. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn is right that the cruelty is inconceivable. We cannot understand why anyone would want to harm or carry out cruelty against animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Twigg, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)— I hope I have got that right—on securing today’s debate and on her excellent speech.

The RSPCA is not just the UK’s largest animal welfare charity, but one of our nation’s most treasured and recognisable institutions. For a startling 200 years, it has been kept afloat thanks to the generous donations of the British public, which just goes to show that we truly are a nation of animal lovers and cherish the work done by the charity to help animals. The RSPCA’s work stretches across every part of the country, and I look forward to visiting my local branch on Friday. It is a shame that the life of an MP is not more compatible with pet ownership, otherwise I would not be leaving there empty-handed; in fact, I would probably leave with an armful.

The RSPCA’s workload is staggering. Last year, it averaged more than 2,500 calls every single day, received more than 20,000 abandonment calls and rehomed 27,000 animals. We appreciate all that it does. It is heartbreaking to hear stories of pets being abandoned by their owners. Sadly, the cost of living crisis and the surge of so-called pandemic puppies have created a perfect storm, whereby more and more people cannot afford to properly care for their beloved companions.

[Tessa Munt]

That is counterintuitive, isn’t it, because having a pet can be one of the things that keeps people’s mental health so fit and together. As I mentioned earlier, the cost of running my local centre is £1,300 a day, but where they can match pets with people, those people often benefit enormously from improved mental health because of the company of an animal.

[Gill Furniss]

I thank the hon. Member for that pertinent point. Throughout covid, which was stressful for everyone, people’s pets were their comfort and also their form of exercise. It is proven that dogs will calm us down when we are in distress and give us something to get up for in the morning.

As difficult as it can be, the RSPCA is always there if owners can no longer afford the cost of owning a pet. There is never an excuse for abandonment, but however the animals get to the RSPCA, it is there for every one of them. I am an animal lover; my father adopted a dog for me when I was a child and I adopted a cat some years ago. When I adopted the cat, I was surprised at the thoroughness of the vetting: we were interviewed, and someone came to my home to check the garden, to see whether we were on a busy road and to do the matching mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). It is comforting to know that pets that have sometimes been abandoned are going to the right people in the right places who can look after them. I imagine that looking after a Chihuahua and looking after a Great Dane are different things— I have not had either, but I imagine there are different focuses and different housing abilities when doing that.

The ban on puppy and kitten smuggling is long overdue. The previous Government dragged their feet on it for far too long and animals have suffered as a result, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about his plans in that area.

I also welcome our manifesto commitment to work towards phasing out animal testing. Although it has been vital for many of our most important scientific and medical discoveries, technological advances mean we can look forward to an age where it is no longer needed. I hope the Minister can outline the way forward for us.

I am confident that the Government’s work on these issues will extend beyond our manifesto commitments, to ensure that we remain world leaders in animal welfare. Given the RSPCA’s expertise, we must listen when it calls for legislative changes. Colleagues have mentioned regulation, and the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn should be listened to. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about establishing an animal health strategy, which I feel would have the support of Parliament, should it proceed.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn—I have said that so many times now that maybe I will remember it—for giving us the opportunity to celebrate 200 years since the RSPCA was formed. This debate has been a great chance to reflect on how far we have come and to discuss what more there is to do, and I look forward to seeing real progress in the years ahead. Most of all, I thank all those associated with the RSPCA—the donors, the workers, the board members and the fundraisers. I really want to congratulate them and wish them a happy 200th birthday.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Twigg. It is a tremendous honour to follow so many great speeches, most of all that by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)—the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) gave us a masterclass in how to pronounce Newport West and Islwyn. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn made a really great opening speech and we ought to be very grateful to her for securing this debate.

It is incredibly important that we mark the RSPCA’s 200th anniversary. It was the first charity of its kind and it is still the leading one, as the largest animal welfare charity in the United Kingdom. There are no two ways about it: how we treat animals—wildlife, livestock, pets or whatever—is a mark of the kind of culture and society we are. Are we a people who are kind? Are we a people who are considerate? Are we a people who consider those who are more vulnerable than us, whether they be humans or animals? That is a measure of whether we truly are a civilised society, and we have to thank and praise the RSPCA for being one of the cornerstones of what it is to live in a civilised country today.

From a local perspective, we have so much to be grateful to the RSPCA for. I represent 1,500 farms, and the RSPCA inspectors help farmers and support animal welfare right across our huge and beautiful communities of Westmorland and Lonsdale, and specifically at the annual Appleby horse fair. We are very grateful for the RSPCA’s focus on that event and in the towns and villages around Appleby, such as Kirkby Stephen, where there is great need for its intervention. RSPCA Westmorland is a wonderful branch, and we praise the inspectors, the volunteers and all the people who make that outfit so very successful, from their base in Kendal to the shops in Bowness and Kendal itself.

As we have heard from many Members today, the RSPCA relies on donations—0.1% of its income comes from a Government source, leaving the rest of it to be raised by hard-working volunteers. That funding is spent incredibly effectively: 82p out of every pound that it raises goes on direct interventions to preserve animal welfare; 1p out of every pound goes on governance; and the other 17p is invested in raising the next pound. It is so important to remember that a really significant part of what the RSPCA does is raise money to be able to do its fantastic work. That is both practical and political, and it is important to reflect on that and to praise the RSPCA for both.

This has been a really great debate, and I will not cover everything that has been said, because of time constrictions, but let us start with the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. She talked rightly about the lack of breeding regulations and the immense suffering that can be caused by specific bred characteristics. I had the pleasure—although it was a very sobering experience in many ways—of visiting Battersea Dogs and Cats Home last year, and I saw the tiny fraction of animals, including a dog, that have been lucky enough to have medical interventions to undo the consequences of such breeding—respiratory problems, great suffering and shorter lives.

That was a reminder of why it is important that we look to regulate ownership as well as breeding. When I were a lad, we had the dog licence, and I am not convinced that it is not a good idea to go back to such a system. We often talk about dangerous breeds, but we are generally talking about poor owners. We need to ensure that we have a licencing system that regulates these things, so that our animals are cared for and well reared.

The hon. Member made a wonderful point setting out the advances and reminding us of the many great things Parliament has done, both recently and over a longer period, including on animal sentience and preventing primates being kept as pets. Many if not all of those things happened because of RSPCA pressure, and we are grateful for that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about a number of issues, but specifically about how much the RSPCA does with so little. He also rightly focused on the RSPCA’s educational work, ensuring that young people know from an early age how important it is to value animals and to treat them with kindness. I am the opposite of the hon. Member in that I was the one brought up with cats and my wife was the one brought up with dogs—and she won. We had a wonderful couple of ginger toms called Eric and Ernie when we were first married; they were terrorised by my toddler, who is now 23. They moved next door and lived long and prosperous lives as a result—there was no need for RSPCA intervention. Sadly, they were the last cats that I owned.

The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) made a brilliant speech, and I welcome her to this place and to the Westminster Hall family. She talked about the importance of rescue centres and how many of them are full. There are too few resources available and so many healthy and otherwise happy animals are tragically put down. She talked about the importance of microchipping and of tackling puppy and kitten smuggling and farming, something that the last Government were shaping to do but did not. There was an animal welfare Bill in the 2019 Conservative manifesto that was good and ready to go, but they took it to bits and did some of it. That was a terrible waste, because there was absolutely a majority in the last Parliament to pass that Bill. I hope the new Government will now finish the job and go further. The hon. Member also made some other excellent alongside that.

I was pleased to hear the excellent and impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay). He talked about the hard side of what the RSPCA does and the importance of bringing prosecutions. There must be justice: when people treat animals unfairly and cruelly we should do more than just wring our hands. We are grateful to the RSPCA and its inspectors and officers for ensuring that justice is done and prosecutions happen.

[Tessa Munt]

I do not want to say that people who have been violent to others start here, but there is a lot of research that indicates that cruelty to animals is often a precursor of cruelty to people. The RSPCA is well placed in its work to identify people who are capable of doing the most dreadful things to animals and who might then go on to offend against other people.

[Tim Farron]

Tragically, my hon. Friend is correct. There is much evidence to back up the idea that many people who abuse human beings started off or learned their trade with how they treated animals. That is shocking, but as the hon. Member for Waveney Valley pointed out, in dealing with prosecutions the RSPCA may end up protecting humans in the long run by tackling those who abuse animals. He also spoke about the impact of animal welfare issues on pollution, and in particular the huge industrial-style chicken sheds and what they mean for water quality. He spoke of the importance of the welfare of farmed animals, which I will come back to in my conclusion if I have a minute.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) spoke about many things, including the RSPCA’s commitment to rehoming and ensuring good homes for those animals that have been abandoned. We need to support it to do that because in many cases, as the hon. Member for Clwyd East said, not enough of those animals are being rehomed because of a lack of space in shelters.

In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) talked about the clear and attested benefits of pet ownership for our mental health—there are no two ways about it. Having lost to my wife, we now have dogs. We have a chocolate Lab called Ted, who is my running companion. I have a running lead and he pulls me up the hills—it is awesome. We also have an elderly and decrepit springer spaniel, Jasper, who used to be my running companion. He improves my mental health by reminding me that I am not the most decrepit member of our household— bless him, but put him in water and you would think he was a seal.

[Tessa Munt]

I would like to offer some balance, because it comes to me that the RSPCA was involved in an amazing project working with young offenders on the south coast. Young people who had often effectively ended up in the prison system, who had never been loved or had anything to love, had the opportunity to work with horses—big, powerful animals that could hurt them more than the other way round. It was an amazing project that allowed the recovery of those young people, which gives a bit of balance to my previous point.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; that is absolutely true. Animals are good for us, so we should be good to them. The RSPCA has been great at encouraging both sides of that.

We have rightly paid tribute to the RSPCA for its practical and political work lobbying to make this place and our society kinder to animals. It has a list of ambitions, and we have gone through many of them, but I will name a handful: to stop illegal puppy and kitten trading, to improve farmed animal welfare, to end the severe suffering of animals used in science, to secure legal protection for animals and establish an animal protection commission, to achieve statutory powers in England and Wales for RSPCA inspectors and, internationally, to secure a UN declaration for animals. To go further and meet the high standards that the RSPCA sets us, we in this place should be banning puppy and kitten farming and smuggling; ending the use of inhumane cages on an industrial scale, particularly when it comes to laying hens; and moving away from animal testing for medical and other forms of science where it is safe to do so.

There are broader things as well. In the last Parliament, we had a Government who did trade deals with countries with poorer animal welfare standards than our own, effectively exporting problems to other countries and, in the process, undermining our farmers, who have relatively high animal welfare standards. They rewarded those overseas producers with poorer welfare standards and penalised our farmers with higher welfare standards. That was wrong, and I hope this Government will do something about it.

For all the problems with the new farm payment scheme, I will praise the last Government for the farming in protected landscapes programme—FiPL—which provides grant support to farmers in places such as the lakes, the dales and other protected landscapes. It allows farmers to move towards accommodation and other capital kit that allows them to keep their animals at a higher welfare standard. That money runs out at the end of March; I would love the Minister to address that. FiPL has been one of the few good things so far to come out of the botched transition from the old farm payment scheme to the new one, and it is good for animal welfare and farmers.

More generally, let us remember that one reason we in this country have higher animal welfare standards in farming than in other places such as Australia and the US is because we have a tradition of family farming and close husbandry. Put bluntly, the first time an Australian or American farmer knows their livestock is unwell is when they find its sun-bleached bones the next year. The reality in the United Kingdom is that we have a closeness and therefore a tenderness and a practical way of being able to care for our animals.

We need to ensure in the farm transition that huge landlords are not the ones who benefit, as is currently happening thanks to the mistakes of the last Government, and instead that we support smaller farmers, who currently cannot get into those schemes. In yesterday’s debate, I mentioned a hill farmer I spoke to recently who has lost £40,000 in farm payments; he has gained £14,000 under the sustainable farming incentive to replace those payments, and even that cost him £6,000 for a land agent to try to get him through the hoops. People like him will potentially go out of business, and we will end up with ranch farming, rather than the family farming we need if we really care about animal welfare in farming in the UK.

In short, 200 years is absolutely something we should celebrate, but the RSPCA lacks resources, and we need to support it to have more. There are many laws that do not support animal welfare as we would like them to, including Government policy that advantages those who mistreat animals both at home and abroad. The RSPCA has done so much and wants to do so much more; it is our job as a Parliament to support it.

Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I will leave the Minister to answer those points, if I may.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I pay tribute, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) would, to the amazing community at Pawlett Hams, who campaigned ferociously, but in quite a gentle way, and single-mindedly to get its aims and dislike across. I hope that that is reflected in the comments made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the community; indeed, we have a meeting in the communities that I represent on Monday next week. It is the case that the communities feel that EDF and the Environment Agency may have been a little heavy-handed in their first approaches. They seemed to be rather fierce and not accepting of the fact that people have a view about their own community and its sustainability.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Lady anticipates the next part of my speech.

As a new MP, it is tempting to believe that this change of heart by EDF is entirely due to my persuasive powers, but that is not the case. All credit must go to the Pawlett Hams Action Group, a genuine grassroots campaign that sprang up to defend the Hams. The group demonstrated the significance of the Hams by conducting wildlife surveys and collecting personal and historical testimonies. It also raised awareness of the issue through petitions, social media, community events such as a photography competition and collaboration with local schools. I pay tribute to the group’s co-ordinator, Judith Ballard, and to the other leading members, Moira Allen, Rachel and Molly Fitton, and Joy Russell. There are many others who worked hard to save the Hams so that it might be enjoyed for generations to come. I thank them all—perhaps they can help the hon. Members for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) in resisting unwanted salt marshes.

Although my constituents and I welcome EDF’s decision not to proceed with the plan, several outstanding questions need to be answered. My first question relates to the inclusion and, now, the planned removal of the AFD in the development consent order. That was included at the request of the Environment Agency. I want to know why it was included if, as we are now told, it is unsuitable for conditions in the Bristol channel. Related to that question, what was the process between the Environment Agency and EDF on agreeing that it should be removed?

To my local community, the process looks opaque. Some of my constituents believe that the AFD should remain as a condition of EDF being allowed to operate Hinkley Point C. I do not claim to have the technical knowledge to know whether it is a practical option or not—and the Secretary of State has yet to make formal decision—but it seems to me that EDF and the Environment Agency are putting together a package of mitigation measures in the hope that the deal will be signed off.

I want to know why, once the decision to explore the establishment of a salt marsh was made, Pawlett Hams was designated as the preferred site. As I said earlier, the Hams is recognised as a wetland of international importance. Turning it into a salt marsh is not a mitigation. It would be an intentional decision to cause environmental harm. It is a completely illogical and extraordinary choice by the Environment Agency. The view of many of my constituents is that the Environment Agency chose Pawlett Hams so that it could flood the land and save money on maintaining flood defences. I want to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain all the flood defences on the River Parrett.

Finally, I want to ask the Government to consider whether there might be a better way of delivering environmental improvements than through the Environment Agency. It was the Environment Agency that wanted to include an AFD in the initial development consent order. Now it apparently agrees that it should be removed, and is the prime mover behind this unwanted salt marsh. Having retreated from Pawlett Hams, it now wishes to inflict this on other parts of the countryside.

If an acoustic fish deterrent is truly impractical— I remain to be convinced—I would like to see the money saved, which would be tens of millions of pounds, put at the disposal of the local community to fund genuine environmental improvements. I want to see those decisions taken by democratically accountable bodies, such as Somerset Council and the local town and parish councils. In my view, they are more likely to spend the money wisely than the agency that thought that turning Pawlett Hams into a salt marsh was a good idea.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Twigg, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I recognise that I have very little time, because I wish to ensure that the Minister has an opportunity to respond to my questions and those of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox).

I have already mentioned that this was a heavy-handed approach, which is how my constituents feel. The fact that there is little detail has caused enormous distress in my community of Kingston Seymour. I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for talking about the campaigners, many of whom I know. I also recognise the efforts of Claire Sully, who was one of the hon. Gentleman’s opponents in the general election. In an effort at balance, I recognise that in 2011, when a proposal affecting Kingston Seymour came from the Environment Agency in a previous iteration, Liam Fox helped us to see it off.

I want to mention a number of things briefly. Some expert evidence was offered in 2011 by Dr Robert Kirby, a coastal geomorphologist and scientist. He advised that any salt marsh would eventually wash away or be eroded. As I already mentioned to the Minister, this piece of coast is on the Severn bore. The rise and fall of the tide will have an impact on every one of the communities. It is the second highest tidal rise in the world, and therefore that seems highly likely.

I have been informed by local historians that the existing seawall is of Roman origin in places, and I cannot understand exactly what the Environment Agency intends. If it intends to breach the seawall, that will increase the level of flooding. If it intends to build up the seawall, it will not create any more salt marsh, so I am really very unsure about this. I will pick up on exactly the point made by hon. Member for Bridgwater about why we were all told that the acoustic fish deterrent would be the absolute answer to all problems many years ago. Now it appears to be utter fiction, and I do not understand how it is that we can suddenly be looking at creating salt marsh and dismissing the number of fish that are going to be killed when that was a critical factor when Hinkley Point C was being discussed. Everyone threw up their hands in horror at the possible mass destruction of fish, but the acoustic fish deterrent was supposed to get rid of that problem.

In the area that we are talking about, Kingston Seymour, the residents have concerns. I have to say that 100% of the population is not against this, but people need the detail. There was a meeting and a number of constituents raised the following points with me. They are really concerned about solar farms, the sewage works in this area and the adverse impacts of saltwater on the three freshwater fishing lakes in Kingston Seymour. They are also very concerned about the increased risk of flooding, and they have already experienced increased insurance costs for their properties and businesses in 2011 as a result of the Environment Agency’s proposals then. There is a brilliant coastal footpath, which is an opportunity for people to move back and forth along the coast. Shortly after being elected on this occasion, I went to the opening of the pier to pier coastal path, which is a multi-user path that connects Weston-super-Mare pier with Clevedon pier. It was massively well used even before it was opened a week after the election. It was incredibly popular in that first week and huge numbers of people were using it.

The other thing that the Minister might want to know is that Kingston Seymour contains sites of special scientific interest. It seems slightly perverse that, where we have conservation sites and we have all been working hard to protect that area, and there are a number of protected species there, we are now proposing to mitigate the mitigation that everyone has provided. It is absolutely bonkers. We will end up mitigating the mitigation of the mitigation of the mitigation if we carry on like this. I really do not see that it is particularly helpful.

I am aware that there are different and expanded tourist offerings in this area since the last EA scheme was got shot of in about 2012 or 2013. There has been significant investment in businesses, including barn conversions that have created tourism accommodation, office and commercial activities, new caravan and camping grounds and new golf course facilities, and several of those businesses have created all sorts of recreational amenity. I am really concerned and I wonder whether the Minister might enable local people in Kingston Seymour to understand exactly what it is that the Environment Agency proposes and the impact it will have on them. That needs to be done really quickly before investigations take place as to the suitability of the land.

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this debate and on his excellent representation of his constituents’ views here today. I begin by saying that this is the subject of a live planning case and I am sure that hon. Members will understand the limits on what I can say. However, I can assure hon. Members that I have listened carefully to the points raised, asked my officials some of the questions that they have asked, and have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the issue. I hope that what I say will be useful to them and their constituents.

I will begin by setting out the facts of the case. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 protects special areas of conservation and special protected areas. The regulations require an assessment of whether a plan or project could have an adverse impact on the integrity of a protected site. Any harm must be mitigated unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and no alternative. In those cases, compensatory measures must be secured.

In this case, an acoustic fish deterrent was part of the approved mitigation for the impact of Hinckley Point C on the Severn estuary. Hinckley Point C has applied to remove the acoustic fish deterrent. That means that compensation may be needed for the loss of fish within the Severn estuary site. The species of concern are Atlantic cod, sea bass, whiting and herring.

In a pre-application consultation earlier this year, Hinckley proposed Pawlett Hams as a suitable compensatory salt marsh habitat. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater has said, Pawlett Hams was designated as part of the Bridgwater bay SSSI in 1989. It is particularly important for its network of freshwater ditches and their associate invertebrate communities—insects. Pawlett Hams is also part of the Severn estuary Ramsar—which is a wetland site—and special protection area, a European designation for bird sites. It has a triple protection.

In its response to the pre-application consultation, the Environment Agency was unable to agree with the suitability of the Pawlett Hams sites until further evidence and assessment has been completed. Hinckley approached the Environment Agency; to gently correct the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the Environment Agency did not suggest it. It is my understanding that the applicant makes a request to the regulator.

I understand that following the consultation, Hinkley Point C is investigating new locations for salt marsh creation as an alternative to Pawlett Hams. It is holding early conversations with stakeholders ahead of public consultation, as we have heard from colleagues today. Any additional sites being put forward are sites identified and selected by Hinkley Point C, not the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency agrees that the marine measures proposed are an appropriate option within a wider compensation package. It has not agreed on the scale of the measures to off-set the predicted adverse effects. To the question raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), flood modelling and flood risk assessments would be required for identified sites.

[Tessa Munt]

As I understand it, the Environment Agency is helping the integrity of the seawall by building it up at Kingston Seymour, so it seems incredibly perverse that it might agree that that should change. Currently, it is making it better by creating more flood protection for the villagers in Kingston Seymour.

[Mary Creagh]

Let me come on to flood protection, and I will say something about salt marshes later. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with my response, then I am happy to write to the Environment Agency on her behalf.

The application for a material change is currently in the pre-application stage. That involves consultation and engagement with various bodies, including statutory consultees such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, which looks after our SSSIs. Those bodies will be able to provide valuable information on environmental impacts. That will include the sufficiency of the compensation package and its ability to compensate for the impact on protected fish species—let us not forget that this is about protecting the fish.

To comply with the pre-application consultation requirements under the Planning Act 2008, Hinkley Point C must carry out an appropriate consultation about any proposed changes. The decision relating to the project will ultimately be for the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) to make. I am confident that he will do so correctly, in line with the requirements of the Planning Act. However, in doing so, he will need to consider all relevant issues. They include whether the proposed compensation is required and if it is, whether it is proportionate to the detrimental impact on fish populations of not fitting the acoustic fish deterrent. The planning guidance is clear: Ministers and officials should approach all such decisions with an open mind, based on the evidence presented to them, objectively and without having or giving the appearance of having any predetermined views on the merits or otherwise of the case. I am sure that we are all, in this room, seasoned politicians in planning applications.

I cannot discuss the particular merits of this case, but I want to raise some broader points prompted by some of the issues, because I too have asked questions. I have heard what the hon. Members for Bridgwater and for Wells and Mendip Hills have asked and that has made clear that we must deliver our infrastructure goals in a way that is positive for our natural world and for our wider landscapes. If we are to meet our ambitious targets on nature restoration while accelerating to net zero, we will have to think carefully about how we use our land. That is why the forthcoming land use framework for England will consider cross-governmental issues, such as energy and food security, and how we can expand nature-rich habitats, such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests.

Spatial planning will play an important role in the delivery of the Government’s growth and clean energy missions, and the land use framework will work hand in hand with the strategic spatial energy plan. The Government will also explore the opportunities for spatial planning to support the delivery of other types of infrastructure. I recognise that in some cases the planning regime acts as a major brake on economic growth, which is why the Government will make the changes we need to forge ahead with new grid connections, roads, railways, reservoirs and other nationally significant infrastructure.

The proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill will accelerate house building and infrastructure delivery and streamline the delivery process for critical infrastructure, including accelerating upgrades to the national grid and boosting renewable energy. That will benefit local communities, unlock delivery of our 2030 clean power mission and net zero obligations and ensure our domestic energy security. We will simplify the consenting process for major infrastructure projects and enable new and improved national policy statements to come forward. We will also establish a review process to provide the opportunity for them to be updated every five years, which will give increased certainty to developers and communities.

We are just as committed to protecting and restoring nature. In England, we are committed to halting the decline in species abundance by 2030 and reversing it by 2042. We are also committed to reducing the risk of species extinction and we will restore and create more than half a million hectares of wildlife-rich habitat by 2042. Delivering those targets sits at the heart of our mission to ensure nature’s recovery. We will look to reduce pressures on species and protected sites, such as pollution and climate change, and we will take action to recover specific species.

I will say a quick word about solar farms, because I know there has been a lot of talk about them, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. My understanding from conversations with my biodiversity net gain team is that when we put in a solar farm on grazing land, the actual biodiversity net gain is up to 140%. I understand there are concerns about solar farms, but actually, it is an interesting way to diversify farm income while providing a boost to nature.

Salt marshes have had a bad rap in this debate. They are incredible valuable habitats. Wonderfully mysterious places on the border between land and sea, they are a liminal landscape in constant change, shifting with the tides. They are often overlooked and undervalued and, as we have heard, they can be talked down. I want to speak up for the salt marshes. They play a vital role in supporting species. For many fish, including sea bass and herring, those wetlands serve as essential nurseries—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Fly-tipping

Tessa Munt Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Fly-tipping sounds faintly amusing but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) so expertly pointed out, it costs millions and blights lives. A constituent wrote in about how, on a daily basis, he sees stuff—including “gas canisters” and “rotting food”—

“blown all over the street after foxes have”

opened bags. He says, “It’s relentless and tiring” and that something needs to be done. Another constituent posts daily Facebook pictures of a dump where there are all sorts of things—dining chairs, a sofa, a divan bed, a TV in bits and decorators’ leftovers. She says it

“looks like a flat clearance.”

The most recent figures we have show that, in 2023, fly-tipping cost councils hundreds of millions of pounds and that there were over 1 million incidents. As has been stated, there are a lot of logistical issues. Fran, who volunteers with the aforementioned group LAGER Can, says that the overlapping, different fly-tips in her street have created a sort of illegal, unofficial dump. Even once it is cleared, it reappears because the cycle continues. One email to me says:

“the council should figure out who keeps doing this and should come down hard on them with big fines.”

As was pointed out, fly-tipping is a criminal offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It can result in imprisonment, unlimited fines and even being deprived of rights to the vehicle used to commit the offence. However, as my hon. Friend said, there is a perception that this is low-level stuff, and the likelihood of being caught is low. People are unaware that leaving items in the street, or outside a charity shop, is an offence.

Solutions should combine carrot and stick. The attitude to fly-tipping should be that it is completely socially unacceptable, and we should treat it more seriously as a crime, enforcing penalties and punishment. However, we should also make it as easy as possible for people to dispose of waste. It is not rocket science that since the Acton dump closed, the prevalence of mattresses on street corners in the area has exponentially risen. Alternative sites at Greenford or out of borough on the north circular are further away, necessitating more emissions. Sites also require pre-booking, with a lot of intrusive personal details—inside leg measurement, hat size. As a small Asian woman with a car, I know that dumps are often not the most user-friendly places, so let’s make things easier. People are not allowed to take a neighbour’s items, and items cannot be walked in either. That fails to understand that not everyone in a street will possess a car.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

When I went to Germany 35 years ago, there was one day a month—towards the end of a month, as it happened—when the rubbish removal people would come around and take away big items. So those who lived in a flat or who did not have a car, or who had any of the problems just described, did not have to think about how to get rid of their mattress. Has the hon. Lady considered that option?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and the idea of the community skip, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall raised in her speech, sounds like a good one. Why not take the solution to the people, rather than expect it from them? We know that all our local authorities are cash-strapped, so I wonder whether the Minister might propose a trial and give that idea a whirl everywhere, because it is free. I now have two boroughs in my constituency—Hammersmith and Ealing—and bulky items collection is at a charge. When I suggested the community skip, I was told, “But it would fill up with builder’s waste.” Great! Surely that is better than having it on every street corner. When I put to an officer the idea of CCTV, which I had received from people who email in with solutions, he answered:

“In order to carry out the sort of enforcement your constituent is asking for with cameras, we would need an infrastructure and network the likes of which one finds in novels by George Orwell.”

There is literally a “computer says no” attitude that comes back. Let us be a bit more creative.