Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot agree enough. It raises the question: who is actually in favour of these proposals, other than the Prime Minister? Despite the consistent opposition to identity documents, this is not the first time that they have been forced on the British public. The first ID card in this country came during the second world war: police officers could demand of the public that they show their cards and they were subject to six months’ imprisonment if they did not. Despite promises in 1939 that the ID cards would be a temporary wartime measure, they were used throughout the post-war Attlee Government; they were ended only by the Conservatives in 1952. Some 50 years later, no longer fighting German spies but the war on terror, the Blair Government tried to bring ID cards back, and they succeeded. Once again, it took the Conservative Government—this time in coalition with the Lib Dems—to stop them. Sadly, the Conservatives are not wholly innocent either when it comes to ID. In 2021, the Government introduced the first digital ID in the form of the covid passport, which I proudly voted against. Thankfully, those documents lasted only a short while before restrictions were lifted. That brings us to the modern day and the latest excuse for ID cards: tackling illegal immigration and delivering Government services.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  There we have it. This is how the Government of the day is going to be engaging with people—stating from the Dispatch Box that they are willing to listen, yet not taking one intervention. May I remind the Minister that Members of Parliament in this House have been elected to represent their constituents? Three million people have signed this petition. Not to have taken one intervention when dealing with matters that have been brought to this House is not only embarrassing for the Minister, but completely discourteous to the Members of Parliament in this Chamber. What a disgrace! Colleagues have spoken, and I thank Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents. I also thank the 3 million people who signed the petition, because they have demonstrated that digital ID is not something that they want this country to move forward with. It is expensive, it is unwanted and it is intrusive. It was not included in the Labour party manifesto. It was not promoted as something that would be brought forward by this Government. The voice of this Chamber has been heard. It is just incredibly disappointing that the Minister did not have the courtesy to reflect that in his remarks. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. In the case of One Login, cyber-security specialists were able to infiltrate and potentially alter the underlying code without being noticed by the team working on the project. In fact, the existing system could be compromised as we speak. We are assured by advocates of digital ID that clever technology will protect the data, but as I have outlined, the temptation to further integrate data within the system will be extremely strong. How long before someone suggests that security features be removed to make the system more efficient? Digital data brings me back to consent. I will finish on this point: digital ID is an ever more intrusive evolution of traditional ID cards—one that promises to be more oppressive. Coupled with the powers of digital databases, increasing widespread facial recognition, digitalised public services and the looming prospect of a central bank’s digital currencies, digital ID threatens to create an all-encompassing digital surveillance state that even George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” could not predict. In every aspect of public life, we give over our data with consent. Yet digital ID turns that notion on its head, insisting that we hand over data to simply function in society, and potentially for reasons to which we cannot consent in advance.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree, but here we are with the latest Government excuse to introduce mandatory digital ID. I can just see the communication advisers in No. 10 looking at today’s polling, dusting off the old ID card plan and slapping “Stop the boats” on the cover. There is no doubt in my mind that if the No. 1 issue of today had been tackling potholes, the very same press release would have come out of No. 10 claiming that digital ID is now the essential solution to tackling the national problem of potholes. I say that in jest, but to point out that it seems that any excuse—however unjustified and unevidenced—will do to push policy through.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID. It is a pleasure to introduce today’s e-petition debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to open it on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank all the organisations and individuals I have met in preparation for the debate. Nearly 3 million people have signed today’s petition. It is the fourth most signed petition in the history of parliamentary e-petitions, comparable only to the recent petitions calling for a general election. It is obvious why the plans to bring in digital ID have provoked such outrage: they are fundamentally un-British and they strike at the core political traditions of this country. Colleagues of all parties are opposed to these measures: the Conservatives, the Greens, Reform, Lib Dems, Labour Back Benchers, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, independent MPs and colleagues from Northern Ireland. In fact, even several Ministers in this Government have, in the past, voiced their opposition to compulsory identity documents.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more, but I suspect that the Minister will come out and reiterate the lines from the Prime Minister that he was given before the debate. Just look at the social credit system in China. Facial recognition linked to ID penalises people. Blacklisted citizens cannot buy train or plane tickets, book hotels or apply for certain jobs. This Government have already indicated that migration work and renting will be tied to ID, but how long will it be before future Governments push further and accessing state services is brought under the control and monitoring of digital ID? We are already seeing signs of such a framework in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Online Safety Act 2023 and the One Login system. Combined with a formal digital ID, those frameworks would create a world of control for Whitehall and a soulless dystopia for the rest of us. Together, they replace the honesty and decency of human-to-human interaction with an opaque, mechanical “computer says no” future. The scary truth is that control and ID cards hold an appeal for anyone who has access to power. It takes a conscious effort by every one of us to resist the temptation. Power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The fact that the Met police cancelled today’s pre-organised Budget day protest and rally at the last minute is an absolute disgrace. I was proud to be out on Whitehall today with many of our farming community and my Conservative colleagues. We share their anxiety and concern that the changes to inheritance tax that this Labour Government are imposing will have a negative impact not only on our farming businesses, but on the wider supply chain. It is absolutely catastrophic. However, it is not only our farming businesses that are being impacted but many family businesses, such as Fibreline in Keighley, which employs about 200 people. It has already worked out that its BPR liability will be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. The options that many of these businesses have are to sell plants or machinery, or to lose control of the business for which they have worked for generations by selling shares. That is not progressive, and it does not give any hope to our family businesses. That is why it is absolutely devastating to see that the Chancellor could not even be bothered to engage with family businesses in the run-up to this Budget over the last year, so that they could get their viewpoints across. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) that it was a disgrace that not one Labour MP was out in Whitehall today to stand side by side with the farming businesses that Labour Members claim to be representing. Many of them represent rural constituencies. Today’s Budget is heartless. After a year of anxiety, uncertainty and desperate pleas, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have shown pure ignorance today, and this while the Government are yet set to spend £1.8 billion on a digital ID policy that nobody I have ever spoken to wants. When it comes to aspiration, why on earth would any young entrepreneur looking at this Budget want to stay in this country, and create the growth that the Chancellor is after and the local economic activity that we desperately need across areas such as Keighley and Ilkley? The message we have heard loud and clear from this Labour Government today is, “Don’t save for your future or for your pension, because Labour will tax it; don’t bother working hard to get that pay rise, because Labour will tax it; don’t take the leap of setting up your own independent business, because Labour will tax it; and don’t you dare die holding assets, because Labour will tax them.” In fact, just about the only thing this Budget does positively is not incentivise anyone to work, but how does that deliver for the economy? Given the crippling, tax-raising Budget that has been put before us, how on earth is the Chancellor aiming to create growth? She still has not addressed the key issues that many of our constituents have been raising with this Labour Government. Last year’s Budget, delivered by this Labour Chancellor, walked the country up the fiscal plank, which was cheered on by many Labour MPs on the Government Benches. I fear that today’s Budget, again cheered on by many Labour MPs, will leave the whole country sinking into the sea.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget was dead on arrival. We were promised that the last autumn Budget was a once-in-a-generation event, but I suggest that the Chancellor may want to correct her record on that claim. Despite setting out to find growth, she has flatlined the economy and tanked employment. Indeed, we now know that Labour will raise taxes by more than any Parliament has raised them since the 1970s. All sectors are being impacted, not only those in hospitality but manufacturing and engineering—the sectors, and the organisations, that grow growth. Our hospitality sector and high streets are the backbone of my constituency, but the cost of doing business is spiralling out of control, not helped by the previous Budget, which hiked employer national insurance contributions and significantly reduced business rate relief, and by an energy policy that is crippling everyone from manufacturers to those in hospitality. Rather than helping businesses—for example, by axing business rates on our high streets, as those of us on the Conservative Benches are committed to doing—the Chancellor has offered them absolutely no ladder at all to get out of the hole that she has created for our small businesses. A month or so ago, I held a roundtable at New Brook Street Deli in Ilkley in my constituency, when Ilkley Brewery, The Little Teahouse and many other businesses came along specifically to raise the challenges around increases in overheads, which they simply cannot pass on to their customers. This Budget does nothing at all to help them. Indeed, it almost seems like this Government look at those businesses as if they were separate from the families who work for them, but when we make it more expensive to employ someone, it is the workers who end up paying through lower wages, fewer hours or potentially having no job at all. Given that those in my area are subjected to council tax increasing by 10%, and that Labour-run Bradford council will increase it by a further 5% next year, there is less disposable income for people to spend. This Budget has ignored the pleas of businesses to let them get on with the job that they want to do and achieve the growth that they aspire to achieve. The Chancellor has slashed investment allowances and pushed up fuel duty for every hard-working Brit in this country, and that is not the way forward for growth. Of course, the increase in fuel duty will negatively impact rural areas much more than others, because there are further distances to travel. Then there is the challenge with inheritance tax, which has not really been addressed at all by the Chancellor today. Small family businesses, including family farms, got just one mention by the Chancellor today, despite the Government unleashing the most devastating tax changes in a generation on these businesses last year. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are set to wreak havoc not only on big multinationals, but on small family businesses. Many farming businesses are going to be negatively impacted.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  But will it be published?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Our position on the family farm tax is absolutely clear: the 100% relief on APR and business property relief needs to remain in place. That is why, as the Conservative party, we are absolutely clear that the family farm tax needs to be axed. When we come to the vote on the Finance Bill, I hope that the hon Member will join us on this side of the House and put his words into action by voting against this disastrous tax policy that this Labour Government are bringing about. It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), despite being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, did not mention the inheritance tax changes once in his contribution.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Cash flow challenges are hitting many of our farming businesses right now. Baroness Batters, of the other place, has produced a profitability review, which seems to be hidden in the depths of the Department at the moment. Will the Minister guarantee that the profitability review will be published this week, before the Budget, so that all our farmers, the stakeholders and us, as Members of Parliament, can scrutinise it and lobby the Chancellor to make the right decisions before the Budget next week?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. We have had valuable contributions from Members across the House. I thank everyone for contributing to this debate on land use and food security, which matters to many of our constituents. May I also use this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place? I think this is the first time that the two of us have been opposite one another. I would like to work constructively with her as we go forward, to ensure that food security is at the heart of Government policy. As we all know, land is a finite resource—no one is making any more land—so a national conversation about how we use our land and what use we put it to is crucial. Most importantly, we must ensure that food security is at the heart of that conversation. Right now, as we speak in this Chamber, farmers outside are protesting against the direction in which this Labour Government are taking our food security agenda—most pressingly because of the Budget next week and the issue of the family farm tax, which I will come to. As a result of the choices that the Government have made over the last 16 or so months, we are, quite simply, in a food and farming emergency. The sustainable farming incentive has been mentioned, but I want to talk to the challenges that many of our farmers are facing to do with cash flow and the cash-flow pressures on our farming businesses. These are the result of the sustainable farming incentive being chopped and the implications of the delinked payments being dramatically reduced to an annual payment of £600 in years six and seven of the transition period. Those dramatically reduced payment rates are having an impact on cash flow. The stopping of capital grants is also having an impact on many of our farming businesses. The end of the fruit and vegetables scheme—it was disbanded with no announcement beyond the end of this calendar year—is also impacting many of our horticultural businesses and has created huge uncertainty for our many farming businesses. Then there are the taxes announced by the Chancellor, including the dramatic increase in employers’ national insurance and the increase in the minimum wage. That has created a disparity between those on the minimum wage and those wanting to get a bit more, and has imposed a huge additional burden on many of our farming businesses. Business rates relief has been significantly reduced, while the fertiliser tax and the double cab pickup tax have been implemented. Those are all decisions that the Chancellor has made in the last 16 months or so, and which have impacted the cash flow of many of our farming businesses. Banks are now speaking to our farming businesses and wanting certainty that they will be able to service their debt. Why? Because many of our farming businesses have an average rate of return of 1%, if not less—sometimes they do not even break even. They are now therefore struggling to provide certainty to the banks that they will be able to service the debt that they hold. All that is before we start talking about the family farm tax. Simply reducing a 100% relief on agricultural and business property to a threshold of £1 million will impact every farming or family business across the country. The average size of a farm is about 200 acres. Once we take into account the value of the farm land, the cottage, the growing crops, the stocks in store and the machinery, the value will be well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing every farming business to an inheritance tax liability of over 20%—one that they simply will not be able to pay. That is the elephant in the room, which not one of the Labour Members spoke about in their speech, despite this being a debate about food security.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  I do hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate and also that she engages with the farming community. It is incredibly disappointing that the Chancellor has not once met with the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association or the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers in the 12 months since the last Budget was announced. It is a disgrace. Therefore, what is the Minister doing to convince the Treasury to axe the family farm tax—the reduction of the 100% relief on agricultural and business properties? If it was not enough for the Government to go after our elder generation and our family businesses, they are also going after our next generation, with the decision to scrap the £30,000 grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers. It is an absolute disgrace. Then we have the land use framework consultation, which is setting a direction of taking about 18% of land out of food production for other things—whether it is energy security, housing, biodiversity, offsetting or nutrient neutrality—and away from increasing food productivity. All that is on top of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which further empowers Natural England, not to acquire land at market value, but to acquire it at agricultural value, disregarding hope value. That all suggests that this Government are not interested in food security. We have yet to receive the findings of the road map for farming, and Baroness Batters of the other place has spent a good deal of time—six months—producing a profitability review, which is on the Secretary of State’s desk. That was meant to be published before the Budget, but what has the Secretary of State said? It will not be published before the Budget, but before Christmas. I ask the Minister a second question: where on earth is that profitability review? Why will it not be published before the Budget, so that we can at least use it to urge the Chancellor to do the right thing? I call on the Government to release the profitability review this week, so that the farming community, stakeholders and all Members of Parliament can digest it before the Budget next week. I cannot stress how urgently we need clarity and certainty from the Government. The implications of the land use framework consultation; the profitability review not being published; the increased taxes on our farming businesses; the decisions to dramatically reduce delinked payments and close the SFI—these are all causing huge uncertainty. What does it say to our many farmers who are outside this building protesting right now when a Chancellor is making those decisions and is not even willing to engage? The emotional toll on our farming community is stark. I therefore urge the Government to have the decency to engage urgently, before the Budget next week, so that our farmers can have clarity on how they use their land. The Farming Minister will no doubt say that food security is national security, as the Prime Minister has already said. But those are only warm words if they are not backed up with sound policymaking across Departments that brings out a proper food strategy, has all-Government buy-in—including from the Treasury—and does not have a huge, detrimental impact on how our farmers use their land or on their hopes to increase food security for the good and the health of the nation.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Land Use Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Before the Budget?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. The Minister will know that our peatlands are a vital store of carbon, storing 26 times more carbon than UK forests. Would he therefore agree that green energy projects built on peatland must prove that they will mitigate more carbon than they will release through construction and disturbance of the underlying peat? Will he commit to refuse any nationally significant infrastructure project that fails that test?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this week, there was a large accidental industrial fire on Pitt Street, in Keighley in my constituency. Nine fire crews attended, some coming from as far away as Mirfield in West Yorkshire. Unfortunately, one person was taken to hospital, and there was a huge amount of damage done to local buildings. My thoughts go out to all those affected by the fire, and I want to personally thank the emergency services for their work, and for acting so professionally. Could we have a debate in Government time about recognising our emergency services, and about what more support the Government can give to businesses that are impacted by such devastating fires?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Access to Nature · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will know that farmers play a key role in enhancing nature and access to it, but that farmers can do so only when it is financially viable and their businesses have certainty from the Government. Yet with the sustainable farming incentive chopped, de-linked payments slashed, capital grants cut, the family farm tax looming and a profitability review completed but deliberately held back from the public until well after the Budget, this Government have created a food and farming emergency, and when our farmers suffer, so does nature. What real, tangible reassurance can the Secretary of State give our farmers right now so that they can stay afloat, produce food, and deliver for nature and the environment?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Family Farming in Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  With over 26,000 farms in Northern Ireland, the value of farmland is incredibly high, if not higher, than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Lady agree that the negative impacts of changes to APR and BPR on Northern Ireland farmland will be much higher for those farming families than anywhere else across the United Kingdom?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Family Farming in Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  A £1 million threshold is nothing when we take into account the value of farmland, a cottage, a farmhouse, growing crops, stocks in store, livestock and machinery valuations—all of which will be taken into account at the valuation of an estate on death. A £1 million threshold is nothing before a 20% IHT liability is put on that estate. I urge the Minister to look at this again. Farmland values are significantly higher in Northern Ireland, and I reiterate my point that Northern Ireland farmers will see a greater impact from the £1 million threshold.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Regulation and Inspection of Funeral Services · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the point that many of our constituents across the country do not realise that anybody could set up and run a funeral director service. Sam Gallagher, one of the directors of Gallagher Family Funeral Directors in Keighley, wrote to me to advocate, quite rightly, that the Government should look at bringing in regulation or, at the very least, requiring that funeral directors must be a member of a trade association in order to operate. Currently we have neither, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, in summing up, will encourage the Minister to offer some warm words that we will be going in the direction of having that regulation put in place.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Regulation and Inspection of Funeral Services · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of Natalie Elliott, the lead petitioner, I thank all the Members who spoke in the debate and the 181,000 people who signed the petition that led to it. It is clear that we all agree that good quality education is vital, but so too is family time. Good quality family time can be enriching, holistic and deeply important to a child’s wellbeing and learning experiences. It is clear that many decent, hard-working families are being penalised by the state through a system that has been widely recognised, including in many contributions to the debate, as ineffective. It simply relies on penalties imposed on incredibly hard-working parents. The system is not fit for purpose. I therefore advocate for the Government to look at how it can be adapted and to recognise, as contributors to the debate have, that SEND children are particularly impacted by the current system. Let me say finally that academies have flexibility in setting their term dates. I advocate for the Government to consider how academies can be empowered to use the powers they already have, and how local authority schools can use those flexibilities too. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  As a fellow Yorkshire MP, I absolutely agree with allowing time out of the classroom for children to go to really good education settings like those provided by agricultural societies and others. That can absolutely be a way of enriching a child’s experience and learning outcomes. If a school becomes an academy, the headteacher has the flexibility to make those decisions on behalf of their students. I would advocate for all schools’ heads to consider that as part of enriched learning. Critics will be quick to point out that the solution that I have proposed is available only to academies, but I suggest that that is a reason to expand academies and expand the powers of local authority schools, and not to ignore what I believe is a sensible solution to a tricky issue. I will close with a response that I received from the chair of governors of a local school in Yorkshire, who summed up the fundamental tension well and is against the objective of the petition. It states: “Schools are challenged enough on attendance and ensuring children get a good education. More disadvantaged children are proportionally more affected by both sides of this argument. The bigger question should be, what is the government doing to fund schools to allow children to get the broader experiences they are getting on these proposed days off? How are they supporting education in different cultures, languages and travel?” I hope that in opening the debate, I have adequately highlighted the pressures on the current, fine-based system and the many exacerbating factors, particularly for families with SEND children. I am sure that colleagues will have their own local stories and cases to share, and I hope that I have set the scene, on both sides of the argument, for a lively debate.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am privileged to open today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank not only Natalie Elliott, the creator of the petition, but the 181,598 signatories who have made today’s debate possible. I also thank the Petitions Committee team for their work, including the comprehensive programme of engagement they organised in advance of today’s debate. I launched my own public consultation on this issue and have received thousands of responses, and I will try to reflect the views of those I have been lucky enough to have interacted with in preparing for the debate. Let me start by laying out the key frustration of the people who signed the petition. Holidays are expensive, and as we all know their price jumps hugely during typical holiday seasons. Unfortunately, market forces mean that many families simply cannot afford a holiday during school breaks. One parent from Keighley told me that she was quoted £1,000 more per person for a February half-term holiday than for one the following week, meaning an identical family holiday would cost thousands of pounds more simply because it was taken during school holidays. This view was reflected by so many families who feel they are being priced out by what is clearly predatory pricing from holiday companies. It is worth pausing to seriously consider the value of a holiday. Holidays are not just frivolity; big or small, near or far, they provide a crucial few days for family members to breathe, spend time with one other and fortify themselves against the next 12 months of work and school. That is even more valuable now that many families have two working parents. Holidays are also a vital part of expanding a child’s horizons. There is an important sentiment that we should go away from home not just to see how we might improve our wellbeing, but because, when we return, we will be able to cherish all the more those things we find good and familiar. Holidays can provide educational and vocational experiences that are impossible to replicate in the classroom. Sarah, a parent from Haworth in my constituency, told me that holidays helped her children “get out of their comfort zone, learn something new and experience new cultures”. Another parent, a dairy farmer from Skipton, said school holidays are the busiest time of the year on their farm, and that term-time breaks are the only opportunity to take time away as a family, reinforcing the balance between work, rest and family life. It is not unreasonable that families should aspire to an annual family holiday, with all the benefits I just outlined, but parents are rightly concerned that the current system, which allows fines to be used for even a single unauthorised absence and requires that they be considered if a child is absent for five days in any 10-week period, criminalises them for simply wanting time with their children—not to mention the economic cost of the fines themselves. Jack, a young man from Keighley, shared that his single mother was repeatedly threatened with fines and even legal action for absences that they could not afford to avoid. He described the stress that that caused their family as “crushing”. The fundamental challenge is that those on both sides of this debate can claim to have the best interests of a child at heart. Attendance is, of course, important, but so are family time and the educational and recreational benefits of a good holiday. We should not be pursuing attendance for attendance’s sake, or pursuing it solely because high attendance might look good in an Ofsted inspection. We need only look at the devastating effects of school closures during covid to see the catastrophic consequences of persistent absenteeism: learning is damaged, safeguarding signs are missed and children miss out on key opportunities to socialise into society. But when we consider just a few days a year for a family holiday for otherwise present children, are we really talking about the same issue? As one teacher who responded to my survey put it: “Just because a child is physically in the building does not mean they are learning—a child who is burnt out or anxious may gain far more from a few days’ respite with family.” It is surely true that the parents paying these fines and objecting to feelings of having broken the law are the same parents who are generally law abiding and value their children being in school. The fines are not successfully tackling the national scandal of persistent absenteeism in the wake of covid, and yet they are wreaking havoc for otherwise well-meaning families. Indeed, 487,300 penalty notices for unauthorised absences were issued in the 2023-24 academic year, an increase of 22% on 398,800 in the previous year. At local level, many local authorities have attempted to adjust processes to improve attendance, with little to no positive impact. In Bradford, the council has issued 11,565 fixed penalty notices this year alone. Views on the issue are certainly not settled. As a serving headteacher who responded to my survey put it: “There are only 190 school days per year and a huge amount of learning coverage to get through in the National Curriculum. A child taking ‘just’ 10 days leave each year of their statutory education would miss a staggering 25 full weeks of their education—that’s well over half a year’s lost learning time.” On one level, there is the challenge of how we tackle absenteeism effectively without punishing parents seeking to enrich the lives of their children, and on another there is the challenge of ensuring that that does not have an impact on a child’s education. Another hugely important area is children with special educational needs and disabilities. As we know, the SEND system is in crisis, for a whole range of reasons. For many SEND families, a family holiday is one of the key opportunities to decompress from the stress, but the busy holiday period is too much for many SEND children to handle. Natalie was very keen to put that point to me when we had our initial discussions before this debate. For some SEND families, off-peak holidays are not a matter of money or convenience; they are a wellbeing requirement for their child. Why should a child struggling with SEND be denied the same access to a holiday as a non-SEND classmate by the threat of fines being issued to their parent? Sophie, the mother of a 10-year-old recently diagnosed with learning difficulties, told me that her daughter “thrives and comes out of her shell” when abroad, saying that the trips are about building confidence and life skills. Another parent, who cares for a child with autism, said that the crowded peak periods are simply impossible for their family to manage and that off-peak breaks are often the only realistic option. It is absolutely true that SEND children have some of the biggest challenges with absenteeism from the classroom, but in the grand scheme of things, are the few days of a family holiday for a child who is generally in school the days that schools and local authorities should be going after, or should other matters be considered? It is clear that the existing model is broken on a purely practical level. For a parent with multiple children in different schools, the situation becomes even more complex. In my outreach, I heard from a number of families about the nightmare of getting permission for one child to be absent, but not getting it for the other. The parents are then left asking themselves whether to call the whole holiday off or take the financial hit. How do they make sure that one child is not blamed by another for the cancellation of their family holiday? The likelihood of getting permission can vary wildly between schools and local authorities. Government guidance has been issued, but it is clearly being treated as just that. I want to finish with what I hope might be a solution to help us sidestep the issue that we are considering. Parents should not have to feel that they are battling the state to get the best for their child; they should be able to rely on the state to help them. Academies already possess the power to alter their term dates, provided that they meet the minimum requirement for annual teaching time. I know of a number of schools that have successfully used those powers to provide odd weeks within their school year outside term time. That slight change in term dates creates opportunities for many parents and cleanly sidesteps the whole issue, creating off-peak holiday time that is accessible to families who would otherwise feel that they had to take a term-time holiday. I stress that it does not reduce the overall hours of learning that a child undertakes annually; it merely redistributes them throughout the year. What is more, providing a clear, comprehensive week of holiday outside peak times empowers heads to remain strict about term-time holidays that are taken regardless.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The official Opposition recognise the need to keep our environment free from pollutants. We recognise that the use of mercury, and its impact on the environment, has increased in the industrialised age. It is right that we take steps to reduce mercury use where possible, and that we work with international partners to do so. However, it is crucial that we do so as a Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom. Last year, the EU took further steps to continue the phase-out of mercury by significantly restricting the export, import and use of mercury for dental purposes. At the time, that created great concern in Northern Ireland, where dentistry practices said that they simply were not ready for mercury-free dentistry and the extra costs that the phase-out would create for the sector. The Government secured a derogation on dental amalgam for Northern Ireland that would end on 31 December 2034, or before that if dental amalgam was similarly phased out across Great Britain. Do the Government believe that that decade-long window gives the Northern Ireland dentistry sector sufficient time to adapt to the regulations that will be baked in by this legislation? At a time when dentists in Northern Ireland are warning that they are already making a loss on routine procedures, what do the Government estimate the transition will cost? Do they have an understanding of the timeframe for the phase-out of mercury in dentistry practices UK-wide, and do they anticipate that the deadline will be before the EU derogation ends in Northern Ireland? Although the derogation is welcome, do the Government recognise that there is an issue with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, given the remaining influence of EU rules and regulations? What reassurances can the Minister give, in an age of dynamic alignment, that Northern Ireland will remain firmly under the authority of Stormont and Westminster, and not Brussels? I note that an impact assessment has not been produced for the draft regulations, because, in the Government’s words, they consider that they will have no or very little impact on the business sector. However, given the concerns of the dentistry sector that I have raised, will the Minister outline why no impact assessment has been produced?