Robbie Moore MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 19 Dec 2024 · Pollution of Waterways · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to wish you and all in the House a very merry Christmas. Many customers are rightly concerned about Thames Water and the situation that company finds itself in. For the third time of asking the Secretary of State in this Chamber, will he confirm that he will not issue any regulatory easement to Thames Water in his discussions with that company, so that its environmental obligations and service commitments to its customers will not be reduced?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by vast numbers of families and relatives of those who have been wonderfully cared for by Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in Oxenhope in the Worth valley. They are all concerned about the impact that the rise in employer national insurance will have on them. Those at Manorlands are deeply concerned that it will cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds. In answering the urgent question, the Minister has announced additional funding, but can she confirm whether it will cover the cost of those rises to Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in my constituency? Did the Government carry out an impact assessment of the negative impacts that the Budget would have on those in the charitable and hospice sectors?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many businesses will be severely negatively impacted by the Government’s announcement on changes to inheritance tax through business property relief. Those in the hospitality sector, such as hoteliers and breweries, and even the manufacturing, engineering and tech businesses in my constituency, have contacted me with their deep concerns about the effect the changes will have on their businesses. Is the Leader of the House aware of any economic analysis or modelling done by the Government specifically on the negative impact they will have? I see that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is sitting next to her on the Treasury Bench. Was he, or even the Chancellor, aware of the negative impact of the measures in the Budget on those particular businesses?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  I often think of our role as place-makers, problem solvers and great representatives of our constituencies, and on that basis, I say a huge thank you to all of my constituents for re-electing me. There is loads of fuel in the tank to keep me going in representing the mighty constituency of Keighley and Ilkley with great enthusiasm and energy. I reaffirm my commitment to doing my very best as their local champion. Of course, place-making is all about driving local growth within our communities. That is why I want to go through some of the key projects across my constituency that I am honoured to be working on. A lot of this work comes on the back of money from the last Conservative Administration, who allocated and ringfenced £33.6 million specifically to Keighley through the Keighley towns fund. This funding is aimed at driving growth by using public sector money to try to drive private investment into the centre of Keighley. One of those great projects is Providence Park, which is due to open early next year. Next door to that, we have Keighley train station, which has just benefited from a £9 million funding allocation. Further along the same road, Keighley fire station is undergoing development. We also have a new skills hub, a new manufacturing, engineering and tech hub, and a new health and wellbeing hub coming down the line shortly. That is not to mention our mighty Keighley Cougars, to which the last Conservative Administration allocated £2 million to regenerate the stands for the benefit of fans. Haworth village hall is benefiting from money to make sure that our community groups can continue their range of activities. Keighley central hall is also benefiting from money. The building of a new sixth-form college has also been announced. I urge the Government to stick to this plan, as I know it is currently under review. We need this new sixth-form college, announced by the last Conservative Administration, to be completed. Madam Deputy Speaker, your constituents will also benefit from our new Airedale hospital, which is a huge achievement. From the moment I was elected in 2019, I campaigned tirelessly for ringfenced money to get our new hospital built, and I am very pleased that work is under way. We also have the city of culture—or, as I like to call it, the district of culture—coming to the Bradford district. It is incredibly important that Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley all benefit from the money that is coming to the Bradford district. I also say a huge thank you to our small businesses. I hold small business awards every year, and I am incredibly grateful to everyone in my constituency who nominated our mighty small businesses. I am very pleased to say that this year’s winners were: Within the Wood, from the Worth valley; Clara’s Closet, from Keighley; Raymond Town Menswear, from Ilkley; and Isherwood’s butchers, from Silsden, which won our overall small business award. Thank you to those small businesses that keep our local economy going, and to all those who shop local. Before closing, I would like to say that I was very saddened to learn of the death of an individual who worked tirelessly as chair of the Keighley towns fund. Unfortunately, Ian Hayfield passed away just a couple of days ago, and I want to put on record my incredible thanks for his tireless energy in driving positive growth in Keighley. I am sure everyone in Keighley will want to do the same. I thank everyone in my constituency for their efforts in the run-up to Christmas, and I wish all Members a very happy Christmas.

• 17 Dec 2024 · New Energy Infrastructure: Community Benefit Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  There is a proposal to build 65 wind turbines on protected peatland in the neighbouring Calderdale council area, which I am staunchly against. To make matters worse, if the development is approved, my constituents will not benefit from any community benefit scheme, despite being on the periphery of the proposed location. How will the Secretary of State ensure that my constituents get their fair share of any community benefit scheme should the proposal be approved?

• 17 Dec 2024 · New Energy Infrastructure: Community Benefit Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  5. If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of establishing a community benefit scheme for households near new energy infrastructure.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Dalton Mills in Keighley, which has previously been the film set for “Peaky Blinders” and the like, has unfortunately experienced continual arson attacks. The most damaging fire was back in March 2022, when £15 million of damage was caused, and the most recent arson attack happened only two days ago. The situation is causing deep concern to many constituents across Keighley because the site, which is owned by the Crown Estate, is dangerous and derelict, and needs to be secured. Can we have a debate in Government time on the responsibility of landowners, including the Crown Estate, to ensure that derelict sites that are dangerous are properly secured?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an excellent intervention. All too often, we see little pockets of development taking place on the outskirts of relatively small towns, without due consideration of the wider challenges with traffic congestion on highways, schools, doctors’ surgeries and indeed the retail offering. Crikey, how many huge developments do we now see taking place where no thought is given even to having a local corner shop within easy access of the residents? Masterplanning and properly considering the impact of these developments on communities such as mine are vital. That brings me to the next issue, which is that when a development has gone through the planning consent process and been built, and residents start moving in and to reside in the development, there is a challenge around how the site is maintained. I will use the example of the Miller Homes development in Eastburn, which is just next to Silsden and Steeton in my constituency. Miller Homes had completed the development, and then all residents were expected to pay a levy charge to a maintenance company, for the maintenance company to then use that money to instruct a contractor that would carry out any maintenance of the grassed areas or hedging within the development. What we were finding was that a resident had no control, necessarily, over how much levy they were paying that maintenance company, but neither did they have any control over the quality of the work being undertaken or over how regularly grass was being cut or hedges were being maintained. The system was not working. I have had many meetings with residents on the issue. I have written to Miller Homes; I have also written to the management company dealing with the matter, because I feel that the situation is geared up for it to be able to make too much profit, and the quality of the service delivered for residents in Eastburn is so much less sufficient. In effect, those who have contacted me are trapped: they are paying for a service that they are not receiving and they cannot escape the situation without moving entirely. That cannot be fair. Better regulation of maintenance levy money for carrying out works on the ground and having a proper quality of work being carried out need to be looked at. As I have said many times in this place, local people are not opposed to new housing, but they want guarantees that services and infrastructure will be upgraded to accommodate the new influx of people. We should be encouraging our housing sector to see the benefits of extra engagement and extra investment in order to open up public support so that more developments are able to take place further down the line. We must also convene developments and developers that work collaboratively with communities, so we can ensure that local communities are getting what they want. Based on the ambitious targets that the new Labour Government have released for increasing the number of houses and on their willingness, effectively, not to take into account local consideration and local consultation, I fear that there will be a dramatically negative impact on many small communities. I will give a further example. In the village of Addingham in my constituency, people went through a very long process of negotiating their neighbourhood plan. They came to the conclusion that over the next 15 years Addingham would be able to accept about 75 new homes being constructed. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, comes along and effectively says, “No, no: we are going to ignore what you have spent the last God knows how many years developing, and say that another 181 new houses in Addingham would be far more appropriate.” That goes against all the work that the local community had done and against any need assessment that had been properly established for that community to grow. I urge the Government to ensure that they always take into account local need and local assessments, as well as the negative impacts on local communities.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  I want to pick up on the point about the grey belt. I will use an example from my own constituency where we have challenges. The local authority is developing its local plan, but genuine concerns have been raised that where houses are being allocated, the need is not being identified—in other words, green belt or grey belt is being prioritised over brown-belt land. Could the Minister outline what conversations she is having with the likes of Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, so that brownfield sites can be prioritised rather than green belt and greenfield, which has negative implications?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but he started off by saying, “I’m not going to make this political,” and then went on to make a very political point. I secured this debate to raise the concerns that residents have been raising. I robustly say to this new Labour Administration that communities like mine in Keighley, Silsden, Addingham and Ilkley, across the Worth valley, are fed up of having housing development after housing development approved by our Labour-controlled local authority without any due consideration of the negative impacts on our communities and infrastructure. There will be impacts, for instance, on our community’s ability to get a doctor’s appointment and on the development of our proper road infrastructure. This is political if Labour’s ambitions are to effectively get rid of the green belt and open up the grey belt when there is no due consideration of the local impacts that that will have. My constituents and people across the country will want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to address the concerns that I have raised. The public must have confidence in the housing process. Otherwise, they will resist new developments, and quite rightly so. If the Government are truly ambitious in their plans to build new homes, they must tackle the issues that I have raised before the impacts are exacerbated and have negative consequences on, I suspect, most of the constituencies of hon. Members speaking in today’s debate. It concerns me deeply that the rhetoric from the Government now seems to be that we need to loosen the housing and planning systems even further, yet we have heard no comments so far from the Government that address the existing concerns about the current system and the services and infrastructure being put in place. As I said, no one can object to the right houses for the right people in the right places—that is why local consideration is so important. If we want to achieve that, we must ensure that our developers behave responsibly and do not damage the vital link of trust between them and the public. Towns like Silsden in my constituency, villages like Long Lee and, indeed, the whole of the housing market rely on it.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The reality is that section 106 money should be spent within a closely defined community area to mitigate any negative impacts resulting from the development. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency. Bradford council, which is Labour-controlled, has the power to hold developers to account so that they ringfence money for the specific communities in which it should be spent. My worry is that the local authority is not spending that money in Silsden or Keighley; it is taking it back to Bradford city and spending it within the city heartlands, rather than allowing my constituents to benefit from it. That is a real challenge. I would like a specific response from the Minister on how we can make sure that we hold the developers, and indeed the local authorities that have these powers, to account in order to ensure that section 106 money and community ownership money are spent in the communities where they should be spent. My next point is about on-site conditions when a development takes place. Unfortunately, in my constituency I have far too often seen new developments—I will give the examples of Harron Homes in Silsden and Accent Properties in Long Lee just outside Keighley—where the quality of the build has been so poor that I, as the local MP, have had to chase the developer on snagging-related issues. Indeed, there have even been challenges with highways or drainage. A Long Lee resident contacted me to say that their property, which bordered on the development, had been negatively impacted by the work of Accent Homes, because the developers had not taken proper access provisions or proper boundary-related issues into account. That resulted in huge holes appearing in the gardens of neighbouring properties. Those properties had nothing to do with the development taking place, but they were still negatively impacted. This should not be happening. Conditions of build should be properly assessed, and the developers should be held to account by the local authority through the enforcement powers available to it. Again, I fear that Bradford council is not being robust enough, when it has awarded planning consent for a build to take place, in going on to hold the developers to account throughout the build process. I have repeatedly raised that issue since becoming the Member of Parliament for Keighley and Ilkley.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  As Members of Parliament, I often think that our role is to be both problem solvers and place makers. That is why today’s debate has been so important. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The common themes have been obvious: early consultation is really important, as well as addressing the challenges around multiple developments and their cumulative impact on wider communities. We also talked about section 106 and community ownership moneys and the importance of the quality of build when it comes to place making. It is right that we get the right homes built in the right locations, designed around the need that has been identified. We have been joined by the farmers protesting outside Parliament, whose noise has been coming into the Chamber. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) rightly said that he welcomed the John Deere orchestra. I only hope that all Government Members are listening to the reasons why those farmers are here today.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s excellent intervention gets to the nub of the point that I want to make. When multiple applications or developments are coming down the pipeline, they must all be considered duly and properly by the local authority. Bradford council, the unitary authority for my area, does not do that, which is incredibly frustrating because in order to work out the negative consequences, or indeed the positive impacts, that multiple developments will have on a community, those issues all have to be considered in the round. Residents need to feel that infrastructure and services are being properly considered. That brings me on to a point that I had planned to make later about section 106 money and community infrastructure money. All too often, a local authority awards planning consent and then enters into a negotiation with the developer to agree the section 106 moneys that must then be paid to the local community, via the local authority, to mitigate any negative effects of the development. Unfortunately, in my constituency Bradford council is not taking a sufficiently robust negotiating position with the developer to extract as much financial benefit as possible for the local community so that that money can be spent in places like Silsden, Keighley and Ilkley and properly set against any negative impacts of the development. I will give an example. With the development on Occupation Lane on the outskirts of Keighley, it was agreed that Barratt Homes would put in play facilities for children of all ages, up to the early teens. But what did we see when the development was complete? We saw play facilities that were more suitable for one or two-year-olds. The developer did the very bare minimum, which was obviously not what the residents expected when they purchased the homes. I could give other examples.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the responsibilities of housing developers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to have secured this debate on housing developers and the challenges that my constituents face around the multiple housing developments that are currently taking place in our area. Housing developers have a huge impact on local communities and our national potential. We are all acutely aware of the challenge of our national housing supply. It is vital to supply the right houses in the right places and to the right people, and without developers that would not be possible, but new housing also has a huge impact on local people. Done poorly, new developments can completely change the existing settlement. They can reduce access to local services and make it harder for a child to secure a school place. They may also make it more difficult to get a doctor’s appointment, or they may add to traffic congestion. Those practical effects make a huge difference to people’s lives. For towns such as Silsden in my constituency, a perfect storm of planning regulations can change the character of the local area. From a town of a few hundred properties, Silsden has grown by hundreds of houses in just 10 years and looks set to grow even further. Given the huge power that local developers have in both urban and rural communities in areas like mine right across Keighley and Ilkley, it is vital that we regulate them and ensure that they act responsibly. We must not forget that developers are businesses and must rightly consider their profitability first, but it is beholden on this place and local councils to ensure that the desire to make a profit does not come at the expense of local people. I want to talk through some of the challenges that my constituents face when developments take place. I will start with early consultation. It is vital, when new housing schemes are developed and initially thought through by a developer, that consultation with local people takes place before a planning application is submitted. Since I became an MP in 2019, Silsden has seen Persimmon, Harron Homes, Countryside Homes, Barratt Homes, the Lindum group, Newett Homes and Skipton Properties all developing houses. Those multiple developments took place in one town. It is right for the local authority to look at the masterplanning associated with the whole town when looking at the collective impact and the level of services provided, and therefore work out any negative consequences of those individual developments. The planning system currently struggles to take separate developments properly into account when consulting with the public. Proper early engagement is vital. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that in my constituency.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Better education is critical for the wider public—for not only those behaving antisocially but those organising large events. As part of the evidence taken before this debate, I heard that even big public events have a negative consequence on pets at home, wildlife, farm animals, or veterans living nearby. Education is key but, personally, I would like to see tougher licensing provisions and much more resource put into enforcement. I commend the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for bringing forward a private Member’s Bill aimed at tackling this issue. In my opinion, the next step forward must be a commitment from the Government to undertake proper research into and impact assessments of firework regulation, so that we can reach a cross-party solution to the issue. Findings from the Petitions Committee, the Government and stakeholders have all pointed out that a lack of evidence limits any serious policy changes. We must therefore ensure that the Government have the evidence available as quickly as possible so that they can make further legislative changes, if they so desire. If a ban or restrictions are necessary, they will take time to implement, so we must also take immediate action. Local councils must be supported to deliver proper enforcement immediately, as must the police to tackle those using fireworks illegally. There is no point in having regulations and laws in place if they are not enforced. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the Government from delivering that support right now. E-petition 639319 received a response from the previous Government, and I am glad that the current Government responded this morning to e-petition 700013. But as I said, the Government must go much further than just giving warm words. I hope this debate will be an opportunity for all Members to stress to the Minister the points they wish to make on behalf of their constituents, and that the Minister will be able to expand on that in his response. I am sure he will appreciate that this issue is of deep concern to the many petitioners who signed the petitions. I am not opposed to fireworks in and of themselves, but I definitely wish to see much tighter licensing provisions, much stronger enforcement and a change so that fireworks can be used only at licensed events. I say to the Government that we simply cannot continue to ignore the growing public demand for change. I hope this debate marks the beginning of real change on fireworks legislation. Fireworks bring joy to many, but their misuse can have devastating effects. When used antisocially, they disturb the peace of an entire neighbourhood, terrify pets and leave vulnerable people trapped in their homes. The culprits terrorise neighbourhoods, as unfortunately I have seen in Keighley. The petitions are not one-offs—indeed, since May 2022 five other petitions relating to fireworks have been put before Parliament—nor are the concerns of the petitioners without justification. In the face of such concerns, there must be action, and that cannot occur until we have had the weight of a full Government policy assessment to decide the best way forward. I fear that if we choose to continue to ignore this issue, there will inevitably be more unnecessary deaths, injuries and traumas for victims of fireworks in the future.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of the Petitions Committee, let me say how grateful we are to Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith for very kindly bringing forward the petitions, which gathered so much support in a relatively short period—thank you. I also extend my condolences once again to Alan, who is in the Public Gallery, for the tragic circumstances in which his mother lost her life. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We have heard from Members from across the country—from Glasgow and Edinburgh right the way down to Luton and, of course, from Keighley and Ilkley. Our constituents contact us about this issue because when fireworks are misused, they impact us all—parents with a newborn, working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep, veterans suffering anxiety issues, and pets and wildlife. Everyone who spoke mentioned the challenging circumstances around antisocial behaviour. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) said eloquently, fireworks are explosives that can be purchased. A common theme of all Members’ speeches was that we must push the Government for stronger licensing, noise reduction and restrictions on sale, and for more enforcement powers to be given to our police and local authorities so that they can properly enforce the existing legislation and anything that comes down the line. It is my duty, on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the petitioners, to urge the Government to act. We heard very kind words from the Minister—he said the Government are listening and reviewing, and he summarised the existing legislation—but we want the Government to go much further on the five points that have been raised. We urge the Government and the Minister to have further exchanges with the petitioners and Members from throughout the House, and I hope they will listen to the points that Members made very strongly today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce the two e-petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Like me, many colleagues will have received countless pieces of correspondence regarding fireworks, so it is no surprise that both e-petitions received significant numbers of signatures. The first received more than 50,000 signatures in the first six months. I particularly thank Chloe Brindley for creating the petition, and for her elegant arguments for banning the sale of fireworks to the general public. Chloe outlines many of the negative impacts of firework use, including animal stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the impact on our A&E services. Chloe is in the Public Gallery today. The second e-petition was kindly brought to the attention of the House by Alan Smith, whom I was privileged to meet last week, and I am pleased is also in the Gallery. It is a pleasure to welcome him to the House. The petition garnered more than 75,000 signatures, despite being created only a month ago. Alan’s story is particularly harrowing but, given that we are considering the terrible and traumatic damage that fireworks can do, it is an important one, and I hope he will not mind my mentioning it. On the night of 28 October 2021, two teenagers, who were under age, went to their local fireworks shop and asked, “What are the good ones to let off at people?” They were not refused service, nor did the owner of the shop ask them for identification. Later that evening, they would take the fireworks they had purchased and stuff them, lit, through the letterbox of 88-year-old Josephine Smith, Alan’s mother, starting a fire that went on to kill her. Not only was that a shocking tragedy and an outrageous, harrowing act, but it shows, without a shadow of doubt, that fireworks are not toys and are not risk-free. If used in that manner, they are weapons that can kill. Whether through accident or malice, 113 people find themselves spending an average of two days in hospital because of fireworks injuries, and research suggests that the total number of injuries is higher. However, fireworks have impacts far wider than those on the users, as the petitions’ signatories will know. Excessively loud bangs and flashes from fireworks can make the surrounding area feel like a warzone. In Keighley, which I am exceptionally proud to represent, fireworks are used throughout the year, often well into the early hours of the morning. There are times when the night sky above Keighley is lit up under the constant thunder of fireworks. The use of fireworks may peak around and in the run-up to bonfire night, but for many of us it is an issue throughout the whole calendar year. In places such as Keighley, and in many other communities right across the country, many are negatively impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks. Working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep cannot, because of the sheer nuisance caused by fireworks. Unsurprisingly, fireworks have a dramatic effect on those who suffer from PTSD. Our veterans may quite literally fear that they have been thrust back into a life-or-death situation, and can be completely debilitated by their use. Other victims of trauma can be triggered even if the event that led to their condition has no connection to the sounds or sights of fireworks. I heard that at first hand just last week, when I met representatives of Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Firework Campaign to prepare for this debate. I thank them for their time. As with humans, fireworks can also trigger the fight-or-flight response in animals. Pets and livestock alike are often terrified by fireworks, and unlike us they do not understand the consequences when they are let off. Of course, that leads not only to incredible distress but, in some circumstances, to the injury or death of animals. I have heard in correspondence from across my Keighley and Ilkley constituency of farm animals stampeding as a result of loud bangs, tearing through fences in their panic, injuring themselves and others, and being at risk of causing road accidents. I have also heard much about dogs, cats and rabbits—in fact, almost every single kind of pet—being negatively impacted. In November, we learned of the tragic death of Roxie, a baby red panda at Edinburgh Zoo. She died on bonfire night due to the stress caused by fireworks being let off throughout the city centre. We must also be conscious of wildlife who do not have a voice but are nevertheless affected. We often forget them but, as those animals are more sensitive to sound than us, they are also impacted considerably. What we hear as a distant rumble can seem to them like a much more threatening, intense experience. Distressing fireworks are used as tools for crimes in my constituency and throughout the country, as many colleagues have told me. Fireworks are used as weapons against emergency services and as nuisance items in antisocial behaviour by youths. In 2021, firefighters attended an incident in my constituency and came under attack by a group of 15 youths hurling fireworks at them. The fact that the individuals were able to source the fireworks to carry out those acts was incredibly distressing, not only because of those who were impacted but because it shows how easy it is to get hold of fireworks. Fireworks have many more impacts, not least causing hearing damage, interrupting sleep and affecting those with sensory processing disorders. I hope Members will forgive me when I say that I and others have raised these concerns before. I take this opportunity to stress that I am absolutely still concerned about this issue. Before I discuss the way forward, it is important to mention the existing body of regulations. The sale of fireworks is banned to anyone under the age of 18, and for the largest fireworks for public use, but that does not stop people buying them, and it does not stop individuals selling them to under-18s. Setting off any firework is also banned after 11 pm, except on certain evenings, but I fear that, as in the case of Josephine Smith, the regulations are not being properly followed, as we all know. I recognise that e-petition 639319 calls for a ban. Indeed, along with those who signed the petition, some 74% of people more widely who have got involved with the many fireworks petitions to come before the House believe that a ban is the right way forward. I must admit that, personally, I am reluctant to endorse bans when they are not completely necessary, but there is growing evidence, including testimony from the many people I spoke to in the run-up to the debate and from police incidents, that enforcement will never be enough to tackle this issue. Simply put, once those who let off fireworks as part of antisocial behaviour have abandoned the scene, it is extremely difficult to catch the culprits. Of course, we must recognise the freedom to enjoy fireworks, but above all else we must protect the liberties of those who are so devastatingly affected, because there is certainly no freedom for those who are trapped in their homes throughout the year because of fireworks misuse. If the illegal use of fireworks cannot be curtailed, the only option we are left with is stricter regulation at the point of sale. Although it may be difficult to catch an offender using fireworks, it is surely easier for authorities to ensure that regulations are followed at the point of sale, and to advise fireworks businesses to use discretion when they fear that fireworks may be used improperly. In a report published this morning, the campaigner Hamza Rehman highlighted the rise in the stockpiling of fireworks across the Bradford district, with fireworks being bought in bulk and stored in private garages to be sold at a later date. I have no doubt that the same is going on in other constituencies throughout the country, and that it could be curtailed if we enforced the laws that are already in place. Even a simple requirement to apply for a permit may be a sufficient barrier to cancel out many nuisance buyers of fireworks, who can currently purchase fireworks as easily as they can a bottle of wine. Stricter requirements could also be introduced, such as raising the age limit. None the less, we must be careful not to force the sale of fireworks underground and create an even more dangerous situation. I hope that in the debate many other Members will get to the heart of the issue and explore the action we can take, as this issue has been idly discussed for far too long. I know that many Members have raised it in the House time and again.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Fireworks: Sale and Use · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour and friend for raising that issue. The challenge is that although previous Labour Administrations introduced regulations, the stark reality on the ground is that there has been no real change. There is still antisocial behaviour, the misuse of fireworks and people getting away with buying fireworks—in my constituency, and I suspect in the hon. Lady’s—when they are under the age of 18. Having seen the Government’s response to both e-petitions, released earlier today, I do not believe they are willing to go far enough, albeit they have said they are willing to listen. I hope Members will contribute in respect of the actions the Government should take.

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

  More

  The hon. Member highlights the devastating consequences that Labour’s Budget will have on our family farms. Many questions remain unanswered, so with the opportunity of Treasury and DEFRA Ministers sat side-by-side, I will put a few to them. First, if this is a unified Government, why did the Treasury tell DEFRA about this policy only the night before the Budget? Secondly, why did Ministers not take into account claimants of BPR in the limited datasets they have released? I am happy to give way to the farming Minister if he wants to answer that specific point, because he has not answered it to date. Thirdly, why do the Government believe it unnecessary to take into account the size of family farming businesses when determining the impact of their £1 million cap on agricultural property relief and business property relief? Finally, for the sixth time of asking in this place, why has no detailed economic impact assessment for this policy ever been produced? Our position is clear: we back our British farmers, and the Conservative party will reverse this family farm tax. That is exactly why we will force this vote today, but we cannot do it alone. I therefore conclude by reaching out to Labour MPs across the Chamber. I know there are some sitting behind the Front Bench who have first-hand experience of rural life, who understand the consequences of this family farm tax and who are saying in private that the Government have got this terribly wrong. I say to those Members that it is not too late to save our farming families from this cruel farm tax and from those faceless multinational corporations that will no doubt sweep up any land that is forced to be sold as a result of this policy. It is not too late to join our British farmers, many farming organisations across the UK and the tens of thousands of farmers who were in Whitehall just a few weeks ago. Many Labour Members committed to back British farming before they entered this place, and now is their chance to prove it. British farmers are watching, and Labour MPs have a clear choice either to back British farming and scrap this catastrophic tax or to put party politics before the voices of their constituents and farmers. I urge everyone in the House to do the right thing: to put British farmers first and vote against Labour’s family farm tax.

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

  More

  This morning, ordinary farming families across all four corners of our United Kingdom will be waking up to another day of hard graft. If it is anything like my upbringing, the kids will be out early helping their parents feed the livestock, dad might be milking the cows or perhaps out crop-walking with the agronomist, rightly concerned about the impact of recent wet weather, and mum will no doubt be battling the elements, keeping the whole operation running smoothly and somehow still finding time to make sure everyone has their wellies on the right feet. Anyone with experience of rural life understands all too well the constant struggle of keeping a family farm afloat. It is tough work—long hours, barely any room to breathe and a financial struggle for many. As I have said many times in this House, our farming families are not multimillionaires; many will be striving to make a profit, but a lot of our families will not be, with many of our farmers earning less than the minimum wage. But today these farmers will also be waking up with the crushing reality that they now face losing everything they have ever worked for—everything that their mum or dad or the generations before them worked for—all because of this Labour Government’s disastrous farm tax. I have spoken to hundreds of farmers in the days since the Budget, as have the shadow Secretary of State and many colleagues sat behind me, and we have learned that Labour’s catastrophic Budget really is an anxiety that very few farmers were ready for. We have heard about many of their concerns in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about those, such as Ross in her constituency, who may have ill health and other challenging circumstances, who do not have time to plan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) talked about farming accountants raising incredibly distressing calls from farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) raised the impact on the wider rural economy and the whole of the UK production sector. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) rightly mentioned the challenges the whole Budget will have on our farming, including the dire consequences of employer national insurance. My hon. Friends the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) rightly highlighted the concerns of family farms that will have been in the family for many generations facing being split up. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) rightly challenged the Government’s own data and figures and lack of understanding of values. But the core issue is that this is all about trust. Before the general election, Labour looked our farmers in the eye and told them continually that there would be no changes to inheritance tax. Indeed, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) even at a hustings before the general election classified this as Conservative scaremongering, and many Labour MPs now sitting opposite proudly stood with placards saying they would back British farming. Yet here we are, 35 days after Labour introduced the family farm tax and 15 days after thousands of family farmers rallied in London, and there is not a shred of contrition from the Ministers sitting opposite—not even the slightest bit of empathy for those ordinary farming families who know the value of their businesses and who have looked at the detail and have been hit hard by Labour’s family farm tax—and that is because their level of arrogance is stark, as we have seen in this debate. The hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) could not even mention one farmer in their constituency who supported this policy. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) seems to be convinced that this will impact only the wealthiest. The hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who I believe is not in his place, and the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) both say they have engaged with their farmers and heard their views, but then failed to mention anything in support of scrapping Labour’s disastrous family farm tax. No wonder their farmers are up in arms. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) turned up but failed to mention anything about inheritance tax relief. And the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) rightly highlighted Labour’s broken promises. I pay tribute to him for mentioning it, but will he have the courage to commit, to back our farmers and to vote with us for scrapping Labour’s family farm tax? The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) spoke, made no reference at all to inheritance tax, but did mention the Budget. I can tell him that after the Budget, in one single week ending 8 November, 1,022 companies filed to shut down. I also point out that we saw 1.1 million more businesses between 2010 and 2023. The NFU, the CLA, the TFA and farming organisations up and down the UK say that Labour’s Budget will tear apart British farming, UK food production and our domestic food security agenda. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, whose members’ job it is to determine the value of farms, says that the Government have got their figures completely wrong. Those very same tax experts who the farming Minister rolled out in defence of this policy just a few weeks ago have now gone on to criticise it. The Government are looking incredibly isolated. Public support for this policy has been wiped out since it was announced, leaving Labour MPs as its only defenders. Up to now, they have all failed to publicly call out our city-dwelling Prime Minister and Chancellor’s callous Budget. Now, we have even had the Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) being wheeled out to open this debate, as the Government’s last remaining hope to try to defend this disastrous attack on our farming families. The Government have lost the experts, they have lost the industry and it now seems they have lost their own Secretary of State from the Front Bench—it is great to see that he has just walked into this debate and turned up—and it is weak and embarrassing.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Support for Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support veterans in Scotland.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Support for Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  Since 1921, the Royal British Legion Scotland has supported veterans and their families through education, remembrance and direct support. This weekend, in my constituency in Keighley, the town council and community groups are unveiling a memorial to the fallen of the first world war, with a time capsule placed under the cenotaph to be opened in 100 years. Does the Minister agree that events such as these, which bring together the whole community, are of vital importance for our veterans—not only in Keighley, but in Scotland and across the wider United Kingdom?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Family Farming in Devon · Hansard source

  More

  Only because I will not have the opportunity to raise this point at the Dispatch Box tomorrow if a Treasury Minister is responding. Will the Minister correct me if I am wrong? When the Government introduced the £1 million cap, they did not look at the size of family farms that will be impacted. Surely they do not understand the value of an estate on death if they have not looked at the size of it, therefore how can they understand correctly the number of claimants who will be impacted?

• 3 Dec 2024 · Family Farming in Devon · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) on securing this important debate. Devon is one of the farming heartlands of England. The rolling fields, so familiar to tourists and locals, are dutifully managed by Devon’s family farmers, over generations upon generations, producing the highest quality of produce. The county is renowned for the diversity of its farming, with a strong mix of dairy, beef and sheep, with some arable, accompanied by many a farm diversification. Despite that, across the whole of the south-west, the average farm income is approximately £30,000 lower than the national average. It is vital, therefore, that the Government support those farms and family farmers to continue to deliver high-quality food produce, and to maintain our countryside for the future. A subject on which the Government and I can find common ground is the money released via the Budget to improve the biosecurity facilities in Weybridge, which will help combat the challenges posed by bluetongue and other diseases. It is vital for farmers in Devon and across the country that we tackle any diseases and their threats early, not only to protect livestock, but to prevent costs spiralling out of control as a result of a fully-fledged outbreak. Unfortunately, that is where the common ground ends. Since the Budget, the Government have chosen to levy a series of shattering changes on farmers, creating uncertainty. There has also been a failure to raise the overall farming budget, amounting to a real-terms cut in funding. The rapid and unexpected delinking of payments from the basic payment scheme will see huge drops in the money received by farming businesses as soon as next year. For many farms, that change in their financial forecasting will be devastating, with long-term plans scuppered as Government support is pulled out from underneath them. Likewise, we are still waiting for the Government to outline their transition process from legacy higher level stewardship—HLS—schemes. Although those schemes have been extended by a year, many farmers are still unable to look beyond that term as they do not know what the Government will expect of them as they move towards the sustainable farming incentive. Indeed, many farmers I have spoken to are deeply frustrated that the equivalent SFI options to HLS options have higher payment rates, yet the Labour Government have made a choice not to allow those locked into HLS agreements the ability to easily transfer into the equivalent SFI. Just last week, we heard of the sudden closure of capital grant schemes, causing deep frustration and confusion to many applicants. Let us not forget that capital grant funds for farmers aimed to deliver environmental outcomes, not just improve business efficiency. However, that funding has been slashed. Farmers and growers are being asked to adapt, and to adopt measures to improve the environment, but they have been left in the lurch by the Labour Government, without having access to important grant schemes that would enable them to do just that. Only a month ago, we were shocked to hear plans to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments. Yet, just last week, we heard the decision by the Government to remove capital grants. How on earth is a farming business able to forecast its plans with certainty? There are also the increased direct costs expected, such as the carbon tax on fertiliser, which is estimated to increase the cost of fertiliser by £50 a tonne and will undoubtedly have a direct impact on the cost of food and consequentially inflate food prices. Then, in the Budget, we heard of the increase in employers’ national insurance, coupled with the reduction in the associated threshold, an increase in the minimum wage, the double cab pickup tax—I could go on. Of course, the biggest impact on our Devonshire farmers and on farmers across the country will be Labour’s family farm tax. The average size of a farm in the south-west is around 200 acres. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly outlined the points raised by his constituent who is a dairy farmer. If we take the size of a dairy business coupled with the value associated with the farmland—400 acres was mentioned—the cost and value of the dairy cows, machinery and feedstocks, not to mention the value of the farmhouse and farm buildings, and perhaps any farm diversification project that has been taken into account, we will almost certainly be over and above the cap of £1 million that this Labour Government have chosen to put in place. That applies to both agricultural property relief and business property relief. As I alluded to, farms in the south-west are even more cash-strapped than the national average. For the many farmers across Devon, the only option under this Labour Government’s implementation of their family farm tax will be to sell assets. But what assets do they sell? Put simply, the combined assault from all measures within the Budget will be fatal for many farms right across the country. That is why the Conservatives want to see this tax reversed. We have forced a vote on that very issue on the Floor of the House tomorrow. Unsurprisingly, not one Labour MP has contributed to this debate. I only hope that Labour MPs, and indeed this Labour Government, are listening to our British farmers and their constituents, who have raised these concerns time and time again since the Budget. That is why we pledged earlier this year to uprate and broaden the offering of SFI options. But we have heard from many farmers throughout the country that they are unable to get into those new options at the speed at which the previous Conservative Administration—and, it seems, the new Labour Administration—have been giving them out. I can only conclude that the Rural Payments Agency is acting slowly to create an underspend next year for the spending review, to see a slash in the farming budget next year. I hope that is not the case; maybe the Minister will be able to allude to the Government’s intentions. I know for a fact that many of Devon’s stalwart farmers were alongside not only myself but my colleagues, in Whitehall just a couple of weeks ago, to protest against this Government’s shameful offering to farmers. I just hope that the Government were listening to their fury and their distress, and that they have listened to the comments that by Members from all Opposition parties in this debate, because it matters. The implications for health and wellbeing matter, and the mental health strain that has been put on our farming community matters. So I say to the Minister: listen carefully to what is being said to you; listen to the professional advisers out there. I only hope that you will change course imminently.

• 3 Dec 2024 · Family Farming in Devon · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister confirm whether, when the Government brought in the £1 million cap, they took into account the size of farming units in any analysis on its impact on future IHT claimants?