Robbie Moore MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 9 Dec 2025 · Water Scarcity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing a really important debate on water security and resilience—a topic that has not had as much focus as it deserves for a long time. Water is a vital resource, but one that has over the last half century, unfortunately, received nowhere near enough attention. We are now reaping the consequences of that inaction. In simple terms, our population is 10 million people greater than it was 30 years ago and we have not constructed any new reservoirs in that period; that is why we have ended up with the challenges that we have heard about. The Environment Agency estimates that, driven by population growth and climate change, there will be a shortfall of nearly 5 billion litres of water a day in this country by 2055—the equivalent of a third of current public consumption. Water scarcity is of course important when we consider drinking water, but there are also dangerous knock-on effects for the environment and for food production, as has rightly been said. Over-abstraction of stretched water sources is having a huge impact on vital habitats such as chalk streams; this year alone, record-breaking droughts have cost arable farmers approximately £800 million in lost production. This was the second-worst harvest on record, and our horticultural industry has been severely impacted. The hon. Member for Horsham rightly talked about the challenges facing chalk streams and infrastructure, and about the lack of strategy planning for water security and resilience. He talked about the implications for his farming community, where there are water-leakage issues with water companies. Indeed, Yorkshire Water represents my constituency, and we have had hosepipe bans consistently for months now. Given that in September we were at 31% capacity, it is not good enough for water companies across the country, including Yorkshire Water, not to put the level of investment into dealing with not only leakages but water storage capacity-related issues. That is not acceptable for many of our constituents.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Water Scarcity · Hansard source

  More

  Yes—absolutely. My hon. Friend has spoken to me on many occasions about her challenges with South East Water, which is not investing sufficiently in increasing water storage capacity. I know there is a meeting tonight to address some of those challenges, but South East Water seems to be consistently chasing its tail and not interacting enough with my hon. Friend, in whose constituency these reservoirs are, or with wider water users. More openness and transparency should be expected from South East Water. Although new reservoirs are definitely needed—I think all Members in this Chamber would concur on that—we must have a broader conversation about water in this country, and most importantly, how we value water. Water can have a positive or negative value depending on whether one’s constituents are being flooded or whether one’s area needs to store more water. At the moment, we are wholly reliant on water companies to deliver major infrastructure and reservoir projects. When a price review index is set by a regulator in a five-year rolling strategy, it is not providing the flexibility that the Government require to increase water storage. I encourage the Government to go further to provide more certainty on increased water storage beyond that which has already been announced. Would it not be better to look at how we can deliver greater water storage capacity in a dispersed way? We should empower smaller-scale projects on private land, which could involve incentivising farmers or landowners, potentially financially, to not only go above and beyond the water storage capacity they need for their own usage, but to store water on their land and then release it to a water grid. I encourage the Government to look at different ways of attracting private sector investment to increase water storage capacity, rather than it being the water company’s responsibility to do that. We must think outside the box on this water resilience issue. Likewise, farmers and landowners do a great service when they allow their land to be flooded during rainy periods. I remember very well, having previously been the water Minister, that I met many farmers who had been flooded during Storm Henk and Storm Babet. Environment Agency assets had burst, and the Environment Agency was saying to me—the current Minister may be getting the same response—that we must not look at dredging or removing vegetation from our man-made assets to get water to flow better through the system. If she is getting that advice, as I did, I would encourage her to push back and say that, as well as trying to build better flood alleviation schemes, we should look at those strategies for water to be stored to potentially deal with some of our water scarcity issues we have. Vast amounts of water are there for us all to see when the land is flooded, and there is an opportunity to use that land to deal with water scarcity issues. At the moment, far too much water is going out to sea during rainy periods and then, come summer, as we have all experienced with another drought, we cannot deal with the water resilience issues. Finally, I strongly encourage the Minister to look at how we can expand and develop the relationship and the flexibility between the internal drainage boards, the Environment Agency, and landowners and farmers who want to increase water storage and capacity on their farm but also want to move water through the system. The catchment-based approach of IDBs and their grassroots nature mean they are doing some excellent work across the country. While they are facing challenges, the way that they are moving water across our farmland and farm businesses is a huge success story. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what level of investment the Government are making beyond the current promises about existing reservoirs that have been announced. How will the Minister deal with the planning challenges to ensure that we get more smaller-scale reservoirs built at speed? What future legislation is she planning to present to the House beyond the missed opportunity of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which does not deal with water resilience or security measures? What additional pressures are the Government putting on water companies like Yorkshire Water to deal with water leakage, despite us seeing hose pipe bans and dealing with challenges around water security? We have heard South East Water, Yorkshire Water, Southern Water and Thames Water all mentioned in this debate, but we do not have certainty from the Government that they are putting enough pressure on those providers.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I have an urgent plea for the Home Secretary and the new chair, Baroness Longfield, who I know will be watching. They will both know that, shockingly, Keighley and the wider Bradford district have never had a full independent inquiry despite Ann Cryer raising the alarm more than 20 years ago. I, leading child abuse solicitor David Greenwood and local survivor Fiona Goddard supported by more than 5,000 local residents have written to the incoming chair urging her to immediately launch a targeted inquiry across Keighley and the wider Bradford district. Will the Home Secretary ensure that Baroness Longfield sees our letter, understands the overwhelming public will across Keighley on this issue and meets Fiona, David and me at the earliest opportunity so that we can ensure that Bradford district is at the heart of the national inquiry?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Therein lies the explanation and the reason why so many Members of this House are opposed to the plans brought forward by the Prime Minister. Here is the question that the Government hope nobody will ask: if the real target is people who are here illegally, why on earth do 67 million British citizens who already have national insurance numbers, passports, driving licences and birth certificates need to be dragged into a brand-new compulsory database as well? What exactly is it about stopping the crisis of inflatable dinghies in the channel that requires your son, your daughter, your dad or your 90-year-old grandma to hand over their data and facial geometry to the Home Office server?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is not about stopping the boats at all; it is about more Government and state control.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. The attitude of control strikes at the very heart of our political traditions. We are a representative democracy, not a command-and-control state. A Government exist by the will of the people, not the other way round. Put simply, we are not a “papers, please” society. One of the most terrifying elements of the Government’s proposals is that these IDs are to be digital. The national database on which our identities are to be held is a true honeypot for hackers all over the world. To those who say that it will be secure, I say, “Name me a company or Government body that has not had a hacking crisis in recent years.” The NHS, the Co-op, Jaguar Land Rover—I could go on. Even Estonia’s Government lost 280,000 digital ID photos in 2021.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. It shows the strength of feeling on this issue. Thousands of people are deeply offended by the intrusion on their civil liberties; thousands are sceptical about whether Whitehall will be able to pull off such a complex scheme; and thousands are digitally excluded, terrified of a “computer says no” future. The Government should give up now, because we on the other side of the debate will never give up. Whether today’s identity cards are stopped before they are implemented or whether they last a few months, as they did in 2010, or over a decade, as they did in 1939, the British people will fight them, we will stop them and we will overturn them. As I said to the Government on the day they announced this policy, I am not a tin of beans and I do not need a barcode.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that digital exclusion is a reality for all. I ask everyone in this place and those watching at home, no matter their political persuasion, to imagine their worst ever Government: the one that keeps them awake at night and that they would march against in the streets. For many, I am sure that that will be this Government, but for some it may have been previous Governments. This single piece of digital infrastructure will hand that Government, whoever they may be, the key to our life. Once that digital infrastructure is set up, we cannot go back. Once digital ID comes into force, no political party can promise that its intentions will stay good forever. Put simply, an ID card gives the state permanent control, and I say no. The slippery slope argument is so common in debates about civil liberties that it is almost a cliché, but once the digital identities infrastructure is in place, it will become so much harder for a well-meaning Minister to resist the idea that they can fix areas of public policy by tracking and controlling, at an ever finer level, how a population behaves.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. Who else but the Prime Minister really wants to drive this through? If the Government expand the scope of digital ID after its initial implementation, I doubt that they will be kind enough to offer an opt-out clause to anyone who has signed up. People up and down the country, 3 million of whom have signed the petition, can see that this scheme is a disaster waiting to happen.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly what a constituent of mine emailed me about—a constituent who voted Labour in 2024. They said, “If they can’t even control the leakage from the Government, how on earth can they control our data?”

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly why this Conservative party is saying no to digital ID once again. The latest guesstimate of how much this is going to cost us all is a whopping £1.8 billion.

• 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.