Charlie Dewhirst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very encouraging that the industry is already making great strides to move away from the traditional crating system to new flexible systems, and that we have already seen 8% change to those systems in the last couple of years?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for her opening remarks. I want to declare an additional interest as, for three and a half years prior to last July, I was an employee of the National Pig Association, and my cousin is a pig farmer. I would like to refute a couple of points from the hon. Lady’s opening remarks, in particular that Britain is not a world leader in animal welfare—it very much is. We can pick other examples from around the world as, when we talk about trade deals, we often say that we would not want to import meat from those countries, because they simply do not meet our standards. We should not do ourselves down. There will always be countries that have a higher bar in certain areas than we do, but overall the UK does a particularly good job on animal welfare across the board. Let me move on to address the system of farrowing crates, and why they exist. Of course, it is not because farmers have some desire to be cruel to the animals. I appreciate that people’s perception when looking at a pig in a crate is, “Gosh, does it live in that confined space?” Of course, it does not; the crate is used for a limited period around the time that the sow gives birth, and there is good reason for it. Around the time they give birth, sows often become extremely aggressive not just to their piglets, but to farmers. Being able to confine them protects piglets from crushing and mauling and allows farmers to get into the crate to look after the piglets and to administer any treatments to them or the sow in a safe environment. If anyone questions the veracity of how aggressive a sow can be around that time, I am delighted to arrange the opportunity for them to get in a pen with an aggressive sow and to see whether that changes their perspective. I also question some of the statistics. On the point about there being no differences in mortality across the systems, a totally unrestricted pen system is likely to lead to around million more piglet deaths in this country a year than a confined system. However, there is a point to be made about the system we use today and whether it can be improved. Obviously, all farmers want to minimise the time for which a sow is restrained, which happens for safety reasons only. The move to more flexible farrowing systems that would still allow farmers to get in there and restrain the sow to ensure safety has already been adopted by the industry. In his shadow role, the Minister was always very understanding of the farming point of view and he engaged closely with industry. It is right that the industry is now moving towards much better systems of limiting sow confinement, without the Government legislating. Flexible farrowing is now available in 8% of the indoor pig industry—that is, 5,000 pens. There are another 55,000 to go, but that will take time. The point about transition is interesting, because we cannot just say, “Tomorrow we need to move from this system to this system.” These are fixtures, fittings and buildings. A lot of the buildings will need to be rebuilt completely, which will require planning permission and vast cost. We need to work with farmers to ask what the realistic timescale is, so that we do not leave people high and dry or put them out of business. We need to make sure that they have the resources and time to move to a better, higher welfare system. I think we can all get behind that. It is better that the Government work with farmers and do not just do stuff to them. There is often a debate and lack of understanding about indoor versus outdoor pig farming. It would seem rather aspirational to have all our pigs outdoors, and to have 100% of the UK pig industry work like that. That is impossible, as we are at the maximum amount of land we can use for outdoor pigs. Outdoor pig farmers operate a different model from arable farmers; they tend to rent the land for two to three years, and move on. They have very much a symbiotic relationship with other farmers, particularly around the East Anglia area where there is the right type of soil for it. Indoor pig farming is much better suited to other parts of the country, such as my constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds, where there is high-grade, arable land. Pigs produce slurry, a natural source of fertiliser, and, of course, we get excellent pork and bacon from them. The petition wants a ban. If the industry continues to move in the right direction, a ban does not necessarily need to be implemented. I would give a warning from history. In 1999, the Tony Blair Government unilaterally banned sow stalls overnight with no transition or compensation. It was a similar situation, because the stalls were fixtures and fittings of the buildings, and 50% of the British pig industry went bust because those farms simply could not afford to transition. We have to be mindful of that in anything we do here when creating legislation that impacts businesses, farming or any other.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates · Hansard source

  More

  It is worth noting that the pig industry in the UK has reduced antibiotic usage by 69% since 2015. That is an industry initiative and should be applauded.

• 1 May 2025 · Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has told the House that the Government would not impose any new costs on the ceramics industry, but we know that they are going to increase carbon taxes, which will kill off energy-intensive industries. Does she not see that this is a totally incoherent policy position?

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  At the London marathon last weekend, my constituent Angus Leckonby from Octon near Driffield broke not one but two world records: he became the youngest and fastest man with an intellectual disability to complete a marathon—and he raised £11,000 for the Special Olympics in doing so. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Angus on his incredible achievement, and ensure a debate in Government time on the future of disability sport in the United Kingdom?

• 1 May 2025 · Hospitality Industry · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality industry.

• 1 May 2025 · Hospitality Industry · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, 115 pubs and five breweries contribute £40 million to the local economy and support 1,500 jobs. As highlighted by the British Beer and Pub Association, the sector faces a disproportionate business rates burden, with pubs paying a higher share relative to their turnover, so will the Government commit to increasing the upper threshold of small business rate relief in order that these iconic British institutions continue to thrive?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member raises a very good point. FIFA’s recent history is not a proud one, but we do not have time to go into that. There is an important point about the way in which UEFA and FIFA operate within the landscape. There is a danger that measures including parachute payments, which affect competition tools and structures, being in the scope of the Bill places the Government on a collision course with those international federations. That has already been discussed. Ultimately, the fact we are here discussing this Bill today is a sad indictment of the relationship between the existing stakeholders. However, it is not beyond the wit of Government to find solutions that do not involve a new regulator. [ Interruption. ] Well, I am not burdened by previous legislation. I also worry that the Bill is playing to a certain viewpoint among EFL clubs that money from the bottom half of the premier league should be redistributed en masse to the championship. Those clubs argue that that would give the promoted clubs—one of which I am a fan of—a better chance of success. I fear that could have serious unintended consequences. It could create a small group of entrenched successful clubs at the top of the premier league and ultimately damage competition, as the top clubs accumulate more and more wealth, to the detriment of clubs lower down. It would effectively end any chance of a club such as Leicester winning the title, or teams such as Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford and Nottingham Forest cementing themselves in the league and challenging for Europe. It would be another two-tier system created by this Labour Government. The idea that the championship is a poor relation is also false. Every championship club receives £7.8 million from the Premier League, which is between 20% and 40% of their typical annual revenue. The EFL has recently signed a domestic broadcast deal worth more than £900 million, increasing its own revenues by 50%, and the championship is already the sixth-richest league in Europe. Finally, I want to address the issue of the medium to long-term future of the regulator. This legislation has morphed from creating an independent regulator with a narrow scope to creating a Government regulator headed up by a Labour party donor, with sprawling powers. Once the regulator has dealt with the most pressing issues, who knows how it might justify its existence in future. The devil will surely make work for idle hands. My fear is that the football regulator will not behave as a guardian of the sport but will instead look to involve itself more and more in day-to-day club operations. We have come a long way since the dark days of the 1980s—an era that reached its nadir just under 40 years ago with the Heysel disaster, which saw English clubs banned from European competition for five years. It was a period when the best English players sought to ply their trade in Serie A, La Liga and Ligue 1. English football is now the envy of the world. I am sure our competitors in Spain, Italy and Germany are watching and would be delighted if we were to regulate ourselves into a less competitive place. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Having been elected more recently, I am somewhat less burdened by previous legislation, but let me be clear: having worked in sports administration for many years, I have serious misgivings about a Government regulator in football. I know that this legislation started out as a very well-meaning initiative, but I have concerns—they have already been raised by other hon. Members—about creeping scope and the potential impact of Government meddling in a great British success story. It is hard to argue that the premier league is not England’s finest export. It is the envy of global football, a competitive and unpredictable league that attracts the biggest names in the game to play in front of packed stadia, with hundreds of millions more watching around the world. The league contributes over £8 billion to the UK economy, pays £4 billion in tax, and employs over 90,000 people. Its reach is truly unparalleled, as other hon. Members have referenced. I have seen kids wearing Chelsea shirts in rural Rwanda and met Man United fans in Pyongyang—in fact, it may surprise the House to know that the premier league is widely watched in North Korea, albeit through pirated broadcasts. However, I understand that Spurs do not regularly feature in the coverage, thanks to their captain Son Heung-min. I am sympathetic to fans up and down the country who fear that the owner of their football club is going to run it into the ground. As a Leeds fan, I know a thing or two about bad ownership and financial mismanagement, and we have heard some good examples of that from Members representing Reading and Sheffield Wednesday. However, we should dispel the myth that every football club owner is some super-rich maniac trying to squander their fortune in order to destroy a local football club.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), but he made his views very clear. I am sure that we will hear more in that tone as we go through the afternoon. It is really important that the Bill does not take us back to a place where growth is stifled. The Government talk about the importance of growth but, taken together, this Bill and the Budget will cause us a very severe problem, because there is very little point in having extra trade union representation if unemployment is going through the roof. Those who are unemployed will not be represented. My big fear is that, overall, this Bill is an act of economic sabotage. It protects the dinosaurs from extinction, it damages the UK economy and it ensures only that trade union donations continue to flow into the Labour party.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think the best solution would be proper privatisation of our railways, including nationalised services like Northern, which is constantly on strike. I would use Hull Trains, which serves a lot of constituents in my area and is very rarely, if at all, on strike, as an example of an excellent, private open-access firm. Rail franchises that have been nationalised have a far greater problem with strike action than those that have not. I wish to go back briefly to the ’70s—the height of the trade union movement. The number of trade union members peaked in 1979, at around 14 million. Since then, the number has declined considerably to around 6 million, the majority of whom are in the public sector. It is often for good reason that people in the public sector are members of a union, but it means that the landscape has changed. We have moved away from being a society and an economy of heavy industry and large manufacturing, and of towns that may have been built on one or two industries, or one or two factories, where everybody in that area was largely employed, either directly or indirectly, in those places. That was where the trade union movement was required, where it was strong and where it was needed. The modern workplace is very different. We are now largely a services-based economy, and the relationship between employer and employee is much more modern and much more flexible. We have heard about the need for the traditional trade union movement, and about a return to secondary action, flying pickets and so forth. Clearly, there is no place at all for that in the UK now.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to develop some of the detailed and eloquent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and to speak in particular about the amendments relating to part 4 of the Bill and the trade union movement. Before he leaves, let me thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for his very measured comments. I enjoyed his referral back to the industrial relations of the 1950s, although I should point out that we have moved on a little since then; I will say more about that shortly. I also thought that he simplified the Opposition’s position. We are not here to bash the unions. We support a progressive, modern trade union movement in which the balance is struck correctly between employer and employees. Unions should not and do not run businesses, but they are an important part of our industrial relations landscape. There can be little doubt that this is, unfortunately, a Bill drafted by the few to the detriment of the many, and the numerous provisions that will largely abolish the Trade Union Act 2016 threaten to drag the country back to the dark days of the 1970s. The very enjoyable speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) perhaps illustrates that return to the 1970s. I am pleased to see a number of his friends from the rebellious left on the Government Benches, and I look forward to hearing their comments in due course. The Trade Union Act 2016 was brought in by the last Conservative Government to reflect the modern British economy and workplace. It moved the trade union movement into the 21st century and ensures that hard-working people are not disrupted by little-supported strike action.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Changes to APR and BPR: Number of Farms Affected · Hansard source

  More

  8. What estimate she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the number of farms affected by changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in Wales.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s statement says, “This decision is about investing in long-term stability.” First, we had the body blow of the family farm tax, the reduction in BPS and the pulling of capital grants, and now we have the cancellation of SFI. How is any farming business expected to invest in the long term?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Pubs: Non-domestic Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The highest pub in the Yorkshire wolds, the Wolds Inn at Huggate, is a great success story—Mr Speaker, I would be delighted to buy you a pint there the next time you find yourself on the right side of the Pennines—but, like many pubs in my constituency, it faces a crippling rise in non-domestic rates at a time when margins are very tight. Local pubs are not just businesses but much-loved community assets, so will the Minister reverse this tax grab and start supporting the great British local?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the impacts of the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are already being felt by businesses across the country? Farmers are simply having to shelve investment for fear of a huge inheritance tax bill. That is affecting the wider rural economy, because no new machinery is coming and no new buildings are being built. It means fewer tax receipts for the Treasury, fewer jobs and a poorer United Kingdom.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Open access operators such as Hull Trains offer excellent, cheap, unsubsidised inter-city services to locations across the north, so why are Ministers trying to block their expansion and stifle growth?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the petitioner and the hundreds of people in my constituency who signed the petition. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) eloquently put it, it is encouraging to see many more MPs present on the Government Benches. I mean that genuinely; previous debates have been a little sparsely attended on those Benches, so I hope this is a sign that things are slowly turning and that there may be change to come. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said that we should not be treating this issue as a political football. That message did not quite reach the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), but I agree that, although it has become a political football, the problem is that the people outside right now feel that they have not been listened to by this Government. The reason there are again hundreds of tractors and thousands of people outside on Whitehall is that people feel their voices are not being heard. That is why we are in here and they are out there: because nobody has listened to them up to this point. I want to go back to a point well made by the NFU president in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in December. He said that the Government should set the sector the exam question and say what they are trying to achieve here. Then the sector can work with Government to reach that agreed point: either to prevent land banking by very wealthy individuals or to raise revenue to support rural public services. Whichever it is, let us get round the table and find a solution that works for all. However, I fear that those in the Treasury have become like modern-day flat earthers—holding their position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, whether from agricultural organisations, tax experts, supermarkets or MPs from across the political divide questioning the impact of this tax. We know that the modelling does not take into account the full impact of business property relief. It largely focuses on agricultural property relief claims, but many people, including tenants, family businesses and farming businesses, will only use a BPR claim and not an APR claim. That is why we need to look at this policy again in its entirety. I ask the Minister once again—dare I say beg him—to please pause this process. Let us get round the table with farming organisations and representatives, and find a better way forwards.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  Hospitality businesses in my constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds are rightly concerned about Labour’s plans for a tourist tax in Wales, so will the Secretary of State confirm to the House today whether it is her Government’s policy to roll out such a tax across the United Kingdom?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  1. Whether she has had discussions with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the proposed visitor levy on the economy in Wales.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is starting to feel a bit like groundhog day, because the Government are clearly not listening to the entire agricultural economy, community or experts. Let us go back to the beginning and have a brief history lesson. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) just mentioned that the Government said prior to the election that they had no intention of changing APR. At the Budget, the Chancellor told us that this was a measure to prevent very wealthy individuals from buying up agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax. That was proven by analysis of the policy to be untrue, so there was a pivot and we were told that the measure was about raising revenue for public services in rural areas. Then the OBR said, “Well, actually, it’s not going to raise the revenue it says it’s going to raise,” so the whole thing has unravelled week after week. We have heard from other hon. Members today about the issue of the APR analysis not taking into account the BPR effect, and what that does for tenant farmers and farmers who have used BPR as one vehicle to wrap everything into in the event of a death. We have farmers, agricultural organisations, supermarkets, tax experts—even The Observer this weekend—coming out against the policy. It is truly remarkable that the Government have managed to unite all those people against one single measure. Today, quite significantly, we had analysis from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. That is important, because the AHDB is a non-departmental Government body, not a lobbying organisation. Its analysis, using data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the farm business survey and the Scottish Government, says that over 75% of farms will be affected by this measure—three times the amount that the flawed Treasury modelling said. Most of those farms simply cannot afford a large inheritance tax bill because, as we all know, they do not have the income to pay it. The result will be the sale of land upon death, most likely to the wealthy individuals or businesses that this very policy was allegedly meant to deter. In turn, that will take land out of production, risking both our food security and local agricultural economies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made a really important point about the impact on construction firms, feed merchants, hauliers, plumbers, electricians—all those who rely on a healthy farming sector. The Government have ploughed on, with their head in the sand, but at what cost? There is a political cost —the decimation of Labour’s reputation in the countryside —but, more importantly, there is a human cost. This measure has placed enormous stress on family farms and, unforgivably, we have heard stories of suicide. If the Chancellor can look again at non-doms, she can look again at this policy. If the Treasury is seeking to deter the wealthy from buying agricultural land, let us look at this again. If it is seeking to raise revenue, let us look at this again. The farmers are not going to back down, and we are not going to back down, so let us do the right thing, get round the table and find a better way forward.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has just confirmed that the Treasury’s modelling is based on agricultural property relief and joint agricultural and business property relief claims, yet tax experts have said in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that many family farms will wrap their agricultural land into a single business property relief claim, so the Treasury’s modelling does not take into account family farms that have used a BPR-only claim, tenant farmers who use BPR, and the many rural family businesses that will also use BPR. Will the Minister please take this opportunity to look at this again, before his Government wreck the countryside?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  We are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Frankly, this is a policy dreamt up by the Treasury on a spreadsheet. There has been no impact assessment, and there is no understanding of its impact on rural communities. This is not just an assault on farmers; it is an attack on the entire agricultural economy. The end result will be less British food, reduced British food security and fewer British jobs. Will the Minister please give our farmers some hope this Christmas, and look at this again?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Farming is a lonely existence at times, and farmers have traditionally suffered from mental health difficulties. This policy is making things far worse, and for small family farms it really is devastating. As others in the House have said, tenants have not been taken into account in any of this. The impact of business property relief is far greater than any of us have discussed so far, because it does not just relate to farms. It relates to any unquoted business, which could be a local haulier, an abattoir or a feed merchant. All of these—the tapestry of our agricultural economy—are impacted by these measures. It really is a devastating attack on our way of life. If we take the Treasury’s figures, which show that £500 million will be taken each year by these taxes, that is £500 million that will no longer be spent in the rural economy. For example, a farmer who wants to expand his livestock herd needs to build a new shed, and that means paying a planning consultant, a construction firm, a mechanic and an electrician. It means a greater feed bill for his new livestock, and he has to buy the livestock. All of those things are part of the wider economy. It is not just the farmers who will be hit by this policy; it is everyone in rural communities. The Secretary of State told us at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that it will all be fine because farms, under his tutelage, will become more profitable. The only way to make farms profitable that quickly is by greatly increasing food prices. If we are to go down the route of food inflation and of inflation more widely, then fine, but the Government are going to have to explain that to consumers in the supermarket.