Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I have a copy of the Government’s response to the developments last night addressed to the Home Affairs Committee, and I find the response completely unacceptable. Are the Government seriously implying that Fiona and Ellie, who have been disbelieved and called liars by the British state their entire lives, are spreading “misinformation” about a process they have been directly involved in? That would be a deeply damaging thing for any Government to imply. Worse, there is a line in the letter about the Government’s proposed inquiry in Oldham that says that the Government “have been in discussions with Oldham Council about the right approach for Oldham”. How can that possibly be right? How can the Home Office discuss the right approach with the very local authorities being investigated? It would be like the Post Office inquiry sitting down with the Post Office to negotiate how it should be investigated. Will the Minister explain how the Government will restore trust right now in the process, given the contents of the letter that she sent to the Home Affairs Committee last night?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Under the weight of surging demand, our system for handling special educational needs is crumbling. Since 2019, the number of new EHCPs year on year has almost doubled from 54,000 to 98,000. The total number of active plans has surged from 353,000 to 639,000 over the same period. Quite simply, the system in place is not able to cope with the level of demand. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some of the fundamental reform that the system urgently needs. There are two issues that need to be tackled—and in isolation, neither will work. The first is the funding and management system. With SEND falling on local councils to fund, but with councils lacking the powers to properly raise money to support increasing demand, the current situation is inevitable. Parents are waiting months, if not years, to receive the support and documentation that they need. Even if that is secured, overstretched caseworkers are making mistakes, referencing out-of-date or draft EHCPs as part of negotiations with schools and councils. SEND needs central funding, and potentially centralised management. Politicians can then have serious conversations with the public about what they are willing to fund through taxation as part of the SEND system. I know only too well what total collapse can look like: Bradford council’s children’s services have been taken into trust after the council’s total failure to fix failing services. The resulting costs are directly responsible for Bradford council’s consistent flirtation with bankruptcy. All that has a negative impact on those in my constituency with special educational needs. However, in parallel to those reforms, we must have a serious conversation about what is happening to our young people. The figures at the start of my speech are nothing short of a surge in demand. Something is happening to our young people: not only are diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism rising, but social, emotional and mental health needs are the third largest category of primary need for EHCPs. Alarmingly, speech, language and communication needs are second. What on earth is going on? I urge the Minister to take this issue incredibly seriously—she will take note of the level of presence in this Chamber.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Keighley Picture House · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition to save Keighley Picture House from closure. When Bradford council announced its intention to sell the cinema building, there was deep concern that the Picture House cinema—a key landmark, open since 1913—would close with it, as it was advertised for a redevelopment opportunity. Residents of Keighley deeply value their cultural heritage. This petition, which I launched to make clear to Bradford council people’s deep feeling that selling the building was not an option, has received 5,421 signatures. Losing the Picture House would be another blow to our high street—one that Keighley simply cannot afford. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley Declares that Keighley Picture House has been part of the town’s heritage since 1913 and must be saved from redevelopment by Bradford Council. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work constructively with Bradford Council and Keighley Town Council to guarantee the future of Keighley Picture House as a cinema and cultural venue for generations to come. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003111]

• 4 Sept 2025 · Moorland Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The thanks of Conservative Members go out to all the emergency services, our mighty farmers and gamekeepers who have been consistently fighting the horrendous blaze on the North York moors. The Secretary of State is currently pushing a dangerous proposal to ban a vital conservation and land management measure through eliminating the use of controlled burning of heather on moorlands, which manages fuel load and helps to prevent out-of-control fires. Does the Minister now recognise that if the Government’s burning ban and deep peat changes go ahead, they will be responsible for more uncontrollable and far more damaging wildfires that negatively impact wildlife, our precious peatland and rural businesses?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Starting a family is a huge milestone for any couple but, crucially, it comes with a huge financial hit, as parents must scale back their working lives in order to care for their newborn. Ben Barnes in Keighley, the winner of best butcher across the whole of Yorkshire, has seen at first hand how, despite working extra hours, one of his employees is still worse off, because his partner is on maternity pay. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the merits of extending marriage allowance so that claimants can transfer a greater proportion of their personal allowance, in order to help young people take that crucial step of starting a family?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  As all of us know, I have been campaigning tirelessly to secure the funding to rebuild Airedale hospital, and it was finally announced in 2023, but it was very disappointing to many of my constituents when the completion date for the rebuild was pushed back by this Labour Government from 2030 to 2035. My constituents and others from surrounding constituencies will now have to wait much longer for the rebuild to be completed because of the decisions made by this Labour Government. The Airedale Heifer, the Busfeild Arms, the Brown Cow and the Black Hat are all fantastic pubs in my constituency, and I encourage everyone to go along and buy a pint of Timothy Taylor’s—one of the finest breweries in this country. A pint of Landlord will go down very well. The Bridgehouse brewery in Keighley also produces fantastic ales. All these establishments want to be supported, but they are expressing to me the challenge of their increased overheads, resulting from this Labour Government, and particularly from the employers’ national insurance increase. The Turkey Inn in Goose Eye is also experiencing the same challenges. These punitive measures are directly impacting communities, as I have said. They hurt young people who want to start out in the workplace. The Government have rightly made a great deal of the importance of getting young people into work, but the Employment Rights Bill, the increase in employers’ national insurance and the hike in the minimum wage are making it much more difficult for the hospitality sector to recruit young people and provide opportunities for them to thrive, get work experience and earn an income. That is impacting many constituencies, not least those across the Keighley and Ilkley area, which I represent.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Hospitality is under a huge strain. Pubs particularly are really struggling across the country, and indeed in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. Nationally, pub closures are estimated to be running at one establishment a day, thanks to this Labour Government’s hike in employers’ national insurance, the hike in the minimum wage and the looming threat of this Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill. The number of closures is only climbing, and these punitive measures are pushing our pubs to the brink. That is coupled with disposable income tightening for families, including families who may want to support our pubs. In the Bradford district, council tax has been raised by 10%. That impacts all my constituents who want to spend money at their pubs but cannot because they have to tighten their belt. The Dickie Bird in Long Lee and many other pubs are coming under a huge amount of strain as their overheads increase; they are, dare I say it, looking at closure. I met the owners of the Dickie Bird recently, and they expressed to me how much financial strain this Labour Government’s policies have put on them; that has ultimately led to them having to make the decision to close.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Here we are, well over a year into this new Administration, this new Labour Government, and it is clear that they have fundamentally mismanaged the economy in their first year in office. What do we see? Borrowing costs up, growth flatlining, taxes rising and businesses being absolutely hammered. To fix this mess to the tune of £50 billion—who knows what it might be—Labour is now threatening to hike taxes on anyone they have not already squeezed into submission. It is clear that the Labour Government are coming after people’s property. It was not enough for them to legislate to compulsorily purchase people’s gardens and homes by giving local authorities and Natural England more power through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to acquire them not at market value, but at a disregarded value relating to agricultural property value if they are a farm. If the Government do not manage to grab it, they certainly intend to tax it. As if that tax on people’s homes or gardens was not bad enough, Labour is also coming after people’s businesses. Through the changes to inheritance tax relief, agricultural property relief and business property relief, the Government have destroyed one of the sole business environments that our communities and businesses rely on—the ability to pass an asset on to the next generation and for them to earn an income from it. Across my constituency, soft furniture makers such as Fibreline, brewers, farmers, hotels and those involved in the hospitality sector have all actively taken the decision to slow the amount of investment they are willing to put in to grow their own businesses. Why? Because of the threats coming out of the Labour Government’s previous Budget in October last year and the Budget coming down the line.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the problem. Many businesses in my constituency—and, dare I say it, in others—are saying to us as Members of Parliament that they want to but dare not invest in growing their businesses, because they do not know what increases in taxes are coming down the line from this Chancellor. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that businesses are reluctant to invest right now in the projects they want to deliver for the growth of their own enterprises?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many of our family businesses, whether in the hospitality sector or in other sectors, are actively withholding a level of investment in their businesses which they want to grow and thrive. I have spoken to many farming businesses and many family businesses in my constituency who have worked out what their BPR or their APR liability is likely to be over a 10-year plan, and are therefore holding the level of investment back, because they may have to give it to the Chancellor and not invest it for the future growth of their business. That is not good for the health of the communities and businesses we represent. Then there is council tax, with the looming threat of council tax revaluations potentially coming down the line, raising the council tax liability on many constituents, with properties potentially moving into higher tax bands. Bradford residents, who include those in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley, have already had our council tax raised by 10%. This threat is being added by the Labour Government when council tax is increasing. And then there is the cut to business rates relief, which is impacting many of our businesses. With the threat of a revaluation process coming down the line, I want to raise the case of the Valuation Office Agency. Just this morning, I spoke to the Rock family, who have developed Providence Park in Keighley, with a huge amount of public funding going into the project. Despite the project completing its construction phase in April, they are now being told that despite an application being submitted, the valuation office is not even progressing with providing the business rate liability. It will therefore be more difficult for the Rock family to let those business premises. What is the Minister doing right now to put pressure on the valuation office to get a grip, pull its finger out and get those rates looked at, not just for Providence Park, but for the many businesses up and down the country that are struggling to get understanding from the valuation office? This debate is about property taxes. We know that the Government have indicated that they are going to come for property owners in the Budget that is coming down the line—they indicated it in the previous Budget through the changes they made to inheritance tax. The Government must change course for the health and the good of the economic prosperity of our country.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about free school meals, because these meals are not free. I spoke with a school in my constituency just last week that has been mandated to provide these so-called free school meals. However, the meals are having to come out of the school’s own budget. Can we change the narrative associated with the rhetoric that this Labour Government are putting out?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  We should all be extremely proud of our animal welfare and food quality regulations. As a nation, we have a proud history of ensuring that food is as safe and high in quality as possible, and that it has not come at the unnecessary distress or harm of any animal. It is important too that our labelling laws are accurate and properly reflect the product being purchased. Free-range poultry is a key requirement for many consumers, and they should expect a minimum standard of freedom for poultry sold as such. We must, however, recognise that the value consumers place on free-range poultry is primarily due to concerns for the welfare of the animal. It is therefore logical that should a bird have to be kept indoors for its own welfare and to prevent the spread of disease, no welfare violation has taken place. Given a choice between a bird being kept indoors and its contracting avian influenza, we in the Opposition are confident that consumers would rather see the bird’s welfare protected, even if the bird is nominally free range and would be so under normal circumstances, as was laid out by the Minister. It is noted that the statutory instrument will also ensure that poultry producers are not left at a competitive disadvantage. We therefore support the Government’s decision to amend the existing regulations. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely share that concern, and I will give my hon. Friend an example of what we face across the Bradford district; the people across Keighley and Ilkley have long known the dangers to smaller communities when such amalgamations occur. In 1974, their well liked and well remembered councils were abolished and absorbed into a larger Bradford council unitary authority, which is one of the largest in the country with a population of 565,000; the average size of a unitary authority is about 250,000 people. Since then, Bradford council has consistently prioritised its namesake, extracting ever higher council tax and costs from outlying areas such as my constituency and neighbouring Shipley and funnelling them into city centre projects of no benefit to the people who have paid for them.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Bringing decision making closer to local people and making it more accountable and more reflective of local needs is a laudable aim, but that is not what the Bill will do. Rather than bringing decision making closer to hard-working local people, it will cement the damaging present system of oversized unitary authorities and dubiously useful mayoralties. If we want our communities to have responsive local government with easily accessible political leaders who deliver on the desires of residents and are accountable at the ballot box, we should not be pushing for larger local government boundaries. If anything, we should be reducing their size.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The Bill is not about local democracy; it is about taking the power for decision making away from local people on where their council tax should be spent. That is why I am advocating that the Government should stop the Bill from progressing. Bradford council is made up of 90 councillors, with Bradford having a greater number of councillors on the council than Keighley and Ilkley combined. That may be reflective of their rural population, but it is completely airbrushing out the distinctly different needs, desires and priorities of areas such as mine. That is why I will advocate continuously for us in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley—and indeed the Shipley constituency—to have our own unitary authority outside that of Bradford. Mayoralties have been arguably a greater challenge. When a constituent has an issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and other Members of the House know that they should not have any difficulty in contacting their parliamentarians as our constituency offices are on the high streets and our emails are always open. We have personal and deep connections to the local communities we represent and are familiar with the businesses and the people that make up those communities. But mayoralties operate over regions with hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of residents within them. If a constituent tries to contact their mayor, it is highly likely that the correspondence will never cross the mayor’s desk. Mayoral regions are simply too large for one person to seriously represent the community level. Aggregating decision making at the strategic authority level makes exactly the same mistake. If a community wants to make an objection, it will have to do so no longer to its local council but to a strategic authority: a body not tied by history, sentiment or even geographical area to those communities, but instead under direction sent by the Government. If we were serious about devolution, we would follow the lessons experienced by Keighley and Ilkley and make local government work at a community level. We would empower not administrative monstrosities but parish, town and smaller, more regional councils. That is why I will continue to advocate for my area to be taken out of the Bradford unitary authority and to create our own unitary authority. I advocate reversing the local government amalgamations made in the 1970s, not doubling down on them. The Bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not be supported.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  Over the summer, Lord Cryer said that there was a deliberate attempt to silence his mother, Ann Cryer, when she first bravely raised the issue of grooming gangs in Keighley more than 20 years ago. Ann Cryer was, of course, one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Keighley. Lord Cryer said that he was “absolutely certain there has been a cover up on a local level”, and that Bradford needs to be examined as part of the inquiry. Unfortunately, Bradford council and others in this House are still saying that they will only support a focus on Bradford if that is deemed necessary by the inquiry chair. That is not the same thing as saying that they will actively lobby for that outcome, so does the Minister share my concern that Bradford council’s reluctance for an inquiry to take place in our area has not changed, despite the voices of so many victims and others demanding one?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could seek your guidance. It has now been 36 days since the Home Secretary came to the Dispatch Box to give a statement on the possibility of a national inquiry into the grooming gangs; indeed, it has been seven months since the Home Secretary, back in January, indicated at the Dispatch Box that there would be five local rape gang inquiries. This is causing a huge amount of concern for many victims and survivors of this heinous crime. Yet here we are on the last day before recess without an update from the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box on the timings, who the independent chair will be, the funding arrangements, and, dare I say, whether Keighley and the Bradford district will be included. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker: under Standing Orders, is there any mechanism for you to ensure that the Home Secretary comes to the Dispatch Box before the end of the day to provide an update on the national inquiry into grooming gangs?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in the Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate, which is one of my favourite debates of the year, because it gives all parliamentarians the opportunity to talk about the fantastic places and communities we represent. We are blessed to have an excellent network of charities in Keighley and Ilkley tackling mental health issues. Andy’s Man Club, Nebula Girls’ Group, AWARE and Missing Peace Wellbeing and Support all do fantastic work. I was privileged to host them recently at a mental health forum in Ilkley alongside Dr Caroline Rayment, where we brought together a range of stakeholders to talk about the challenges facing younger people. I thank Dr Laura Spells, who came along to give hugely compelling and deeply worrying evidence about the damage that smartphones are doing to our young people. I look forward to continuing to work with Dr Caroline Rayment and those stakeholders to tackle the mental health challenges facing our young people. In Keighley and Ilkley, we like to do things properly. That is why just last weekend it was excellent to attend two standout shows from both ends of the musical spectrum. Beat-Herder is one of the highlights of the UK festival calendar, and it was fantastic to go along and support the independent show created by six lads from Keighley. I want to say a huge thanks to Jamie Foxon and Nick Chambers for organising that event. At the other end of the spectrum, the BBC definitely has competition, because Silsden Proms on the Farm was a roaring success for another year running. I pay tribute to Stuart Clarkson, William and Eileen Jowitt and their team of 10 volunteers who put that fantastic event together, raising money for Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice and the Silsden Methodist church. I know that many who attended that fantastic music event visited Olive & Green and Isherwoods butchers beforehand to ensure that their picnics were as good as they could be. I also attended the Oxenhope straw race, which is in its 50th year. For those in the House who do not know about that event—crikey!—it is where everyone gets dressed up in fancy dress and runs down the Worth valley, having a pint or two in the pubs along the way. The event has raised more than £500,000 for local charities across Keighley and the wider Worth valley. I commend Robin Wright and his team for the excellent work that they have done in bringing it together. Let me say a huge well done to our local Salvation Army, whose victory programme teaches young people for free how to make cheap and nutritious food. I was lucky to meet some of them just this weekend; I had a great chat with many of them about the challenges they face. I say a huge thank you to Imogen Stewart and her team for the work that they do alongside Rachel to provide those teaching sessions for many people across Keighley. It is vital to give young people the skills to stay on the right path, and that is why I want to say a huge thank you to Switch Hitters boxing club. I particularly thank Jonny Greenwood for getting it going in Keighley. The club is doing excellent work. I attended it, but I did not get involved in the boxing sessions myself—I have confirmed that I will go back with my shorts on so that I can take part. I felt slightly intimidated by some of the lads from Keighley in their boxing gear, but I will go back and give them some support, because sports clubs do a huge job in providing confidence to young people from across Keighley. Ilkley is lucky to be the official host of Yorkshire Day on 1 August. We were lucky enough to host it a couple of years ago in Keighley, and we will now host it in Ilkley, which will be a huge success for all residents across our area. I wish all Members across the House a very happy recess. I hope that they will be out door knocking, speaking to as many constituents as possible and advocating as strongly as possible for the things that matter to them at a local level, as I will be.

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I shall be responding on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State while she meets farmers at the Royal Welsh Show. Let me begin by recognising the scale and seriousness of the work undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team. The review contains 460 pages and 88 recommendations, and represents one of the most detailed examinations of the water sector since privatisation. Indeed, there is much in it that we cautiously welcome, including the merger of the regulators. As we examine the recommendations in more detail, we stand ready to support serious reform if it is done properly. However, I am afraid that what we have seen and heard from the Secretary of State over the past year has not matched the seriousness of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s work, nor has it gone anywhere near the root-and-branch radical reform that he sold to voters before the election. I therefore seek clarity from him on the following points. First, over the weekend the Secretary of State announced that Labour would cut sewage spills by 50% by 2030, but what he did not mention was the fact that plans submitted under the last Conservative Government were already set to cut sewage spills by even more than that amount. The Times reported yesterday that the Secretary of State’s new pledge would actually see an additional 20,000 discharges of sewage in our rivers, compared with existing plans. Can the Secretary of State explain why, after 88 recommendations and a year-long review of the sector, he has watered down sewage reduction targets rather than massively ramping them up? Secondly, the Secretary of State took to the airwaves at the weekend telling the public that we needed to go back to the “purity” of our waters that we all remember, but the uncomfortable truth for which Labour still refuses to take responsibility is that when it left office in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. Let me repeat that: under Blair and Brown, 93% of sewage discharges were happening with no oversight and no accountability whatsoever. The only reason we can talk tough today is the fact that the last Government pushed monitoring to 100% in 2023. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State to clarify his statement? Thirdly, the Secretary of State told the public that he had secured £104 billion of investment from the water sector to fund these reductions, but what he did not mention was that £93 billion of that investment plan had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023, nine months before he was even in office. I would know that because I was the Minister at the time, and I have here the letter showing that he had nothing to do with it. Will he comment on that? Fourthly, the Secretary of State champions the 81 criminal investigations of water companies that have taken place since the election and his ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, but what he does not explain is that these criminal investigations are a direct result of the Conservatives’ policy of quadrupling the number of water company inspections, and that it was our party that launched the ban on bosses’ bonuses. This is all available for the public to see and to fact-check for themselves, as it is a matter of public record. What all this shows is that, for all their bluster and promises of radical change, the Government have made almost no new progress on the issue over the past year. They have sat on their hands for more than a year waiting for the review. It is no wonder that the campaigners whom the Secretary of State so shamelessly used for votes in the run-up to the last general election are now, today, calling for his resignation. We on this side of the House stand ready to work with the Government on serious reform. We will support any action that genuinely holds water companies to account, delivers cleaner waters and protects the public from paying the price of corporate failure. However, we will not stand by while the Secretary of State rewrites history, waters down ambition, and backtracks on the promises that he made to the public.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to those points, but I first wanted to outline the nature of the debate, because it is important to recognise the contributions that have been made. We know that reducing our plastic use is vital for two key reasons. The first is the impact on the environment. It is estimated that as many as 1 million seabirds die each year as a result of entanglement in plastic. In fact, at current rates of increase, the weight of plastic in the oceans will outweigh all fish by 2050. Plastics also pollute our inland waterways, having a detrimental impact on nearby areas, especially when we consider the long-term chemical effects of decomposition. The second reason is the growing body of research showing that long-term exposure to plastics is bad for our health—particularly microplastics, as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned. Everything from hair loss to fatigue, heart conditions and strokes have been linked to microplastics. What is most concerning is that, while the health links may not yet be fully understood, we know that microplastics persist for centuries, not only in the environment but in our bodies. As we use more plastic through our lives, these levels build, potentially increasing the risks. That is precisely why securing an effective global framework to reduce plastic use is key. The resolutions passed in 2022 were an encouraging first step and show clearly that countries across the world recognise the challenge and wish to tackle it. Crucially, this global support for progress on plastics is key to ensuring that standards are raised uniformly and that the risk that plastic waste is simply offshored is significantly reduced. We simply must not offshore our responsibility. Equally, we must be realistic about how we manage plastics. We must recognise that unilaterally banning or heavily restricting many types of plastic will leave us uncompetitive on the global stage. We must work with other nations and bring those that are sceptical along with us. That scepticism is precisely why we must use the negotiations on this treaty to take these matters forward, and to make them concrete. We cannot simply have goals or aspirations. We must have verifiable targets that can be measured so that we can hold organisations and stakeholders to account. Naturally, we should then expect all signatories to fulfil those obligations. I hope the Government are able to confirm that they will push for the inclusion of these measures in the treaty as they continue to negotiate, to ensure compliance by ourselves and other partners. We must continue to work not only on the global plastics treaty but to improve our plastic waste record at home. We must continue to invest in our sorting and volume capacity within the recycling sector to ensure that the amount of recycling continues to go up, and to reduce the amount going to landfill. Plastic pollution is not going away. Many plastics will be with us for thousands of years, so it is vital that we act to stop the flow of waste into our environment. When discussions are reopened next month in Geneva, I hope that the Minister will be in attendance and that the Government will be successful in securing the robust and practical treaty that we all hope to see.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I begin my remarks by acknowledging an interest in this area: my family own and operate a plastic recycling business, though I make it clear to the House that I am not directly involved in the management of the business, nor do I have any financial interest in it. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this really important debate. All Members have made hugely valuable contributions. The right hon. Member spoke about the importance of responsibility for not only stakeholders but wider industry and, indeed, policymakers. In the light of the upcoming negotiations on the global plastics treaty, it is an important time to have this debate. Before coming to the potential treaty, it is worth taking a moment to consider some of the domestic context to our national relationship with plastic, and that brings me on to the other contributions. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) rightly raised concerns about microplastics, which have been mentioned by many Members in this House. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the challenges of plastic litter and plastic waste in his constituency, and he rightly called on the Government to hold China to account in their global discussions. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly raised the importance that young people place on reducing plastic usage, and he mentioned the concerns and letters that have been submitted to him by various schools in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who is not in her place, raised the importance of banning single-use vapes and the work of local businesses and organisations in her constituency—including ABBA Voyage, which I have seen, and I noted its work to reduce plastic waste. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) focused on regulation and the importance of this place having an influence on the global plastics treaty. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) rightly raised her staunch objection to the incineration of plastic waste, and I agree with her. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, a planning application for an incinerator was approved by Labour-run Bradford council. I have been staunchly against that, and I wish her well in her local campaign. The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) talked about research undertaken by Professor Christian Dunn at Bangor University, which I hope the Minister will look at. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and his neighbour, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), talked about the importance of progressing conversations on the global plastics treaty and the need for a greater focus on the concerns of their constituents, raised today by the strong voice of their Edinburgh representatives. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about the importance of reducing virgin plastic production and the need for a real focus on increasing recycling rates. Finally, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referenced the importance of local groups that drive forward change. For decades, we have used plastic in ever more roles and in ever greater amounts. Indeed, plastics have replaced many everyday items that once were made from paper, glass or metal. Plastic may have been the way forward then, but that does not mean it need be the way forward now for everything. For that reason, I welcome the important steps that were taken by the previous Conservative Government. Plastic straws, drink stirrers and single-use plastic bags are all notorious for polluting our natural environment, and it was therefore right that efforts were taken to ban them. In fact, the plastic bag charge has successfully seen plastic bag usage reduced by 98%. Other restrictions on single-use plastic cutlery, cups, trays, plates and many other items are now in force, with the ban having an important effect on reducing residual waste. Residual waste is key. We know that the UK produces a huge amount of plastic waste—as much as the second most per capita globally—but we also know that, due to strong environmental protections, very little of that waste is now handled irresponsibly. Of course, there is always more to be done. For comparison, 80% of the plastics in the ocean originate from Asia, compared with just 0.4% from Europe. Reducing residual waste must be the key pillar of any international treaty on plastic waste. The previous Government understood that when they legislated in the Environment Act 2021 to halve residual waste, and I trust that the Minister will be able to reassure us that it remains the key goal of this Government.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Independent Retailers · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met the owners of Bababing in my constituency, who have opened up new premises in Keighley. They want to grow and expand as quickly as possible, but they told me that this Government are stifling business growth for not only Bababing but many other SMEs across the country due to the decisions they made in the Budget last year to increase employer national insurance and the minimum wage, and the Employment Rights Bill, which is coming down the line. Do the Government recognise that they are stifling growth, and if so, what are they doing about it?

• 17 Jul 2025 · NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care · Hansard source

  More

  The Daily Telegraph reported in April that a quarter of doctors have reduced their overtime to avoid potential five-figure tax bills, and NHS capacity has been reduced by about 10% as a result. This has been raised many times when I have been out and about door-knocking across Keighley and Ilkley. What steps will the Government take to rectify this absurd situation, which is preventing doctors from working more to reduce waiting lists?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In a few weeks’ time, more than 500 Kate Bush fans from up and down the UK and across the world will descend on to the moors near Haworth for what is billed as the “The Most Wuthering Heights Day Ever”. This year, the mass wuther is doubling up as a protest against environmentally damaging proposals to place a huge onshore wind farm at the very heart of Brontë country, damaging protected peatland. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a Kate Bush fan, but will she consider joining the hundreds on the moors for “The Most Wuthering Heights Day Ever”, and does she agree with me, climate experts, nature organisations and the Brontë Society that destroying carbon-rich peatland in the name of net zero makes net zero sense?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Strategy for Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Fair elections must be elections that we can all trust. The most important element of our electoral system is that it is a secret ballot and that it should be down to the individual to make up their own mind. I am therefore deeply concerned that the widespread use of postal voting across the country is allowing dangerous fraud with many voters still intimidated and coerced into using postal votes on the instruction of somebody else. The review covers many practical aspects of postal voting, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure the accuracy and honesty of the postal voting system?