Robbie Moore MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He has spoken about the issue many times in this place, so I know it is one that he cares deeply about. Air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today: it contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and, as was outlined in the contributions of many hon. Members, places an enormous amount of pressure on our NHS. All of that reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. That is largely due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. When wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for, the economic cost of air quality not being addressed may be as high as £50 billion. Air pollution also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities—13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods. The health impacts of that are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It can also cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous systems, as has also been mentioned by several Members. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lasting, lifelong effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Chamber what targeted action the Government will be taking to address that gap in exposure to poor air quality. The Conservative party has a proud record when it comes to improving air quality, but there is much more to be done, as outlined in today’s contributions. Air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. The levels of all the key pollutants, bar ammonia, have fallen by over 70%, with levels of PM 2.5 and PM 10 falling by 27% and 20% respectively between 2014 and 2024. The previous Government’s 2019 clean air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as “an example for the rest of the world to follow”. The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030 respectively. The previous Government also passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM 2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in population exposure by 31 December 2040. Furthermore, the previous Administration’s 2023 environmental improvement plan set out a direction to support clean air, with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances in smoke-controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality, continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North sea emission control area to cover the Irish sea, reducing emissions from shipping. The roll-out of any strategy, legislation, guidance or regulation that focuses on improving air quality must also take into account the economic, social and environmental impact, so that the best strategy is adopted and there is the best buy-in from residents and businesses. Without their buy-in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate that we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation that then has a wider detrimental effect. That is why, as the official Opposition, we oppose the Government’s restrictions on wood-burning stoves. For many people living in rural areas, wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where mains gas is unavailable and the alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place. We also committed to scrapping the zero emission vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. There should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress. It should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or the weakening of domestic manufacturing. Again, a balance must be struck if we are to improve air quality. That is why a strategy of simply taxing motorists is just not the right approach. The Mayor of London’s expansion of ULEZ is having hugely damaging financial consequences on some of the poorest and most deprived residents and communities in London, as well as on many motorists and trade-related businesses.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits. A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest-working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact. Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them. My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy-in. That is why I use the example of the roll-out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non-charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy-in at the local level. I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll-out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area? It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co-ordinated approach across Government. Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy-in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air. To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy-in from all and not just use a one-size-fits-all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Back in 2022, the Keighley Cougars were awarded over £2 million to replace the Danny Jones stand, which is in dire need of repair, but Bradford council has still not made a decision on releasing this money, despite it having been awarded to the team. Can we have a debate in this place about how we unlock this money, which had been allocated through the Keighley towns fund, so that we can get these projects underway for the benefit of my residents in Keighley?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her opening remarks, and on the work her Committee has done to produce its report. It was an exceptional read—I thank her and her Committee. I am seeing increasing numbers of cases where leaseholders experience a range of problems, including high service and administration charges, a lack of transparency, overcharging, disproportionate costs to extend leases or buy freeholds, poor actions by managing agents, a slow and costly sales process, and imbalanced dispute mechanisms with leaseholders potentially liable for the freeholder’s legal costs. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the retirement village up in Ben Rhydding in my constituency. For the past year, I have been working with the Clevedon owners group, who have experienced real-life examples of how the current leasehold framework governing the integrated retirement sector falls well short of the standard that should be expected. The Clevedon owners group is made up of a group of leaseholders at the Audley Clevedon retirement village in Ben Rhydding. They have experienced repeated failures by their landlord to fulfil some of the most fundamental obligations contained within their leases, while the landlord continues to collect substantial service charges. The owners group estimates that the Audley Group collects approximately £30 million of annual service charges a year across its whole estate, with £3.5 million of deferred service charges, yet its residences are falling into disrepair and the freeholder is not updating its commitments or undertaking its responsibilities. The owners group has highlighted to me that its biggest concern is around the legal definition of the service charge and, crucially, whether certain mandatory payments in retirement leases fall within the statutory definition of a service charge under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The experiences of those residents in the Audley retirement village demonstrate exactly why this seemingly technical issue has profound and real consequences. Leaseholders have paid substantial monthly management charges and deferred management charges on the understanding that the funds would maintain their homes, safeguard communal facilities and ensure the long-term sustainability of their residential community. It is clear from the meetings that I have had with my constituents that that simply is not the case. Instead, their properties have gone unserviced, which presents serious questions about how the annual service charge and those funds are being used. Following years of expansion, heavy borrowing and financial difficulties, maintenance across the Audley Clevedon retirement village has reportedly declined significantly, despite leaseholders continuing to pay increased service charges. That needs to change, and I respect some of the recommendations in the report on that point. Does the Minister have any intention of commissioning an independent forensic audit of major retirement community operators to examine corporate governance, financial arrangements, service charge accounting, deferred management charges and compliance with lease obligations? Can he confirm that leaseholders in retirement housing, including integrated retirement communities, will not be excluded from the protections of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024? The current legal framework has failed to keep pace with increasingly complex corporate structures. If confidence in retirement housing is to be restored, residents must be given the protection, transparency and accountability that they rightly expect.

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. Our high streets are facing huge challenges at the moment. Nationally, fiscal pressures have been put on them—employer national insurance contributions, the minimum wage, the business rates increase—and the Employment Rights Act 2025 is making it even more challenging for many of our high street businesses to take on young people. Then, of course, we have the tourism tax, or holiday tax, coming down the line.

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 30 Jun 2026 · High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts · Hansard source

  More

  Then why on earth legislate and introduce further regulations that impose much more of a burden on our high street businesses? That is exactly what businesses are telling me, that this legislation is making it more costly to do business. The tourism tax will tax businesses in Ilkley and Haworth, imposing much more of a burden on them for less money to be spent locally. What does that do? It gives our Mayor of West Yorkshire more power to use my area as a cash cow for money to be spent in other areas across West Yorkshire, rather than investing it in my constituency. Locally, Bradford council has imposed car parking charges across the whole of my district, including for on-street parking, which is making it much less attractive for people to come and spend money in Ilkley. A petition signed by 4,000 residents was submitted to Bradford council, but the council went ahead regardless. It costs £3,000 to £10,000 to install a parking machine. In the village of Addingham, which has only 18 parking spaces, it will take decades before the council starts making any money. My simple request to the Minister—and indeed to Bradford council, which I hope is listening—is to remove those parking charges, take away the cost to visitors and residents who want to spend their money locally, and back our businesses. We are fed up with being used as a cash cow for the rest of Bradford to benefit at our expense.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  But we have half an hour.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate, and congratulate him on his speech—I thought he made some excellent points. Many young people are entering adulthood without the knowledge, confidence and access to the financial services that they need to build secure futures. Some 70% of adults believe that better financial education in their younger years would have improved their ability to manage their finances, and two thirds of young people believe that the lack of financial education has played a role in their amassing the debts they hold. I wish to talk through a few issues that have been raised with me, particularly regarding access to apprenticeships and the challenges that those in our rural economy face with increased costs. I recently visited Keighley college in my constituency, where I met the principal Kevin O’Hare. Kevin highlighted to me a key issue that is putting young people undertaking apprenticeships at a financial disadvantage compared with those who decide to stay in full-time education, if they are from financially deprived backgrounds. Currently, young people who remain in full-time education after the age of 16 continue to be treated as dependent children for the purpose of a range of household benefits. In contrast, young people who enter an apprenticeship are generally treated as employees, which can lead to a loss of income-related support linked to household benefits. For some low-income families, the resulting loss of benefits can exceed the apprentice’s initial earnings, meaning that a household might be financially worse off when a young person chooses an apprenticeship, compared with had they remained in full-time education. I am keen to understand what conversations the Minister is having with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education on that classification, because that appears to run counter to the Government’s objective of promoting apprenticeships as a prestigious pathway that is equal to academic study. It may disproportionately affect participation among young people from disadvantaged communities. I have seen that in the casework coming into my office. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of household benefit losses on participation in apprenticeships among 16 to 18-year-olds? If the Minister cannot answer that in her speech, I would be grateful if she would write to me. The second issue that I want to raise follows a meeting that I had this weekend with Silsden and Skipton young farmers club, whose members were keen to raise the cost of car insurance. Young people in rural areas face a crisis of skyrocketing insurance premiums, which makes it difficult for them to get around. Limited public transport makes owning a car essential, but they face huge costs. They cannot take up job opportunities and education if they are priced out of the market. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke about the mental health implications when young people feel the strain of debt, whether from going through education or simply because of the cost of living in rural areas. The key underlying point is the Government’s failure to grow new opportunities for young people. Unemployment has risen to 5% and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. In January to March 2026, an additional 110,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed than in the same period in 2025. Young people at Keighley college who wish to pursue opportunities through apprenticeships face being worse off. That is further exacerbated by the rise in employers’ national insurance and the minimum wage, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which has created challenges. Fiscal inclusion is about education and, crucially, about fostering an economy that rewards hard-working and ambitious young people, rather than punishing them. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on those points.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her place. On the issue of mental health, many young people in my constituency raise the challenge of getting into work. With youth unemployment now at record levels, does she realise that one of the best ways of tackling mental health issues is to enable people to get into the job market in the first place, so that they do not have the additional pressure and anxiety of not being able to earn funds? Does she not recognise that things like employer national insurance, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and minimum wage increases have exacerbated the unemployment figures? Will she work with industry to address the concerns that are being raised with me and, I am sure, with her in her new role?

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am also a member. Cancer is an issue that touches most of us, nearly every single day. No doubt we will all have had a friend or family member with cancer, and I am grateful that this petition has given us the opportunity to debate such an important issue. This is an extremely poignant debate for me, as I lost two friends to cancer at the end of last year: Russell Brown, who served the Worth Valley as a district councillor on Bradford council, and Chris Graham, a former Keighley town councillor who served the Longley and Parkwood wards. Their recent losses are still felt very much across the communities that I am lucky enough to represent. We have rightly had several recent opportunities to debate the issue of cancer, but today’s debate is particularly important, as breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women in the United Kingdom and the second most common cancer overall, with around 60,000 new cases and 11,200 deaths each year. That equates to about 31 deaths every single day, which is far too many. This important petition calls for early diagnosis, which is crucial. According to Cancer Research UK, 76.6% of women survive for 10 years or more after being diagnosed, and 85% of those are diagnosed at an early stage. I agree with the petition, and I thank Gemma Reeves for starting it, as well all those who kindly put their name to it, including from across my constituency. It is right to call for early screening at the age of 40. There is compelling evidence that early detection saves lives. Breast cancers identified at an early stage are genuinely smaller and less likely to have spread, and they require less aggressive treatment. Early diagnosis and early screening are key. Early diagnosis can not only improve survival rates, but it reduces the physical and psychological burden associated with advanced diagnosis and the disease spreading. It is equally important, however, to acknowledge that screening for breast cancer is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Screening for younger women generally produces less accurate mammograms because the tissue is denser, making cancers more difficult to detect and increasing the risk of false positives, but it should still happen. I repeat the petitioners’ call for early diagnosis. It is incredibly important. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 36. She has been through chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, and I am pleased to say that she is on the mend, but that is another example of someone being diagnosed before the age of 40. If there is an historical family association with breast cancer, those under 40 should have the opportunity for early diagnosis. I agree with the petitioners that having a repeat opportunity of screening for annual check-ups rather than every three years is important. Access to screening is not just about age; it is about ensuring that those who are eligible for screening are aware of it and choose to take part. I have major concerns about the lack of uptake across certain groups. There is 81% uptake for breast cancer screening in the least deprived areas, compared with 56% in the most deprived areas. I know that the Minister cares deeply about the issue and I commend her for her work on it; the cause is close to her heart. I would be keen to understand from her how the Government are looking to tackle that discrepancy. I would also like to understand whether there is a plan to roll out an annual screening programme rather than just a three yearly one. Ultimately, I know that all hon. Members participating in the debate share the objectives of reducing deaths from breast cancer and ensuring that women receive the best possible care, but they cannot be achieved without a fully funded long-term workforce plan, alongside a clear, funded milestone to show how and when patients will see improvement. I put on record my thanks to the volunteers, campaigners and professionals, including the mobile cancer screening units that operate in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley as part of the Airedale hospital team, for their incredible and tireless work to help and support patients. I would like to understand whether the petition’s aims are part of the Government’s ambitions under their 10-year health plan. This poignant petition asks the Government for the right things, and, given the amount of correspondence I have received from petitioners and residents across my constituency, it has my backing.

• 29 Jun 2026 · NHS Breast Screening · Hansard source

  More

  I want a bit of clarity from the Minister, because the petitioners are calling on the Government to lower the age at which women are first called for breast cancer screening to 40 and to roll out screening on an annual basis rather than every three years. I know that they are not intending to do that, because we have seen the written response from them in advance of the debate, but what further evidence do the Government need to be able to achieve what the petitioners are asking?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Prisoner Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the news that Keighley and Bradford is finally getting an independent grooming gangs inquiry. It has been a long fight, but for survivors like Fiona Goddard, who I spoke to again last night, the news has been bittersweet. The fact that Fiona and many other victims and survivors of the most horrific sexual violence have been written to by the Government to inform them that the very rapists and paedophiles convicted of abusing them could be released as early as September is an absolute disgrace. Fiona’s life has been turned upside down, and she and many others live in fear right now, and they also fear being retraumatised by a system that is diminishing the horrors that happened to them. I ask the Minister directly: will he guarantee now from the Dispatch Box that Fiona’s perpetrators will not be released early?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. On the day when the farming roadmap has been announced, this just shows the direction that the Government want to take: to destock and produce food less. The key question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Secretary of State did not answer in the Chamber was: if that is the ambition of the Government, where is our food coming from? The £100,000 cap for the SFI will be a disaster, resulting in lower environmental roll-outs. The changes to delinked payments that went through as a statutory instrument just a couple of weeks ago had no costed impact assessment associated with them. It is an absolute disgrace that Labour MPs all voted to drastically reduce the payments despite no impact assessment having been done. The Conservative party has been clear that we will reverse the family farm and family business taxes. We will reinstall the 100% relief on agricultural and business property because we know the huge negative implications that is having on family businesses needing to mitigate any inheritance tax liability and on the investment they are able to put into their businesses. That is impacting not only our primary producers but the wider supply chain. I say to those Labour MPs that they should be ashamed of themselves for continuously voting that through. Then we come to the challenges associated with input costs, including the fertiliser tax. If we want to increase or stabilise domestic self-sufficiency at 63%, why on earth are the Government coming through with the fertiliser tax? It has been raised as a concern, but the Government seem unwilling to tackle the challenge. The Conservatives will scrap that tax. [Interruption.]

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Mr Turner, for your advice to colleagues. If they wish to intervene, they are more than welcome to do so. Red diesel has been a huge challenge: its price rose dramatically from 67p a litre to about £1.35p a litre at its peak. However, the Government’s rebate or reduction applies only to this year. If someone is growing crops or producing livestock, they need greater certainty beyond this calendar year. I call on the Minister to reinstate a level of reassurance that goes beyond the end of this calendar year. We then have the EU reset. Pushed by EU members, the Government have put back the date beyond 22 July. However, CropLife UK has rightly estimated that the EU reset deal, as it is being promoted at the moment, could drain £810 million from UK farmers and sacrifice almost 9,000 jobs. What reassurance can the Minister provide to our arable sectors, which are suffering and struggling right now? Today we had the announcement about the farming roadmap for the next 25 years. Where is the reassurance that cross-sector Government Departments have bought into that? Labour’s record on this is not good. It does not matter what food strategy the Secretary of State for DEFRA comes out with: if a Chancellor comes out with fiscal decisions like those under the last two years of this Labour Government, that will blow any food strategy out of the water.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, Mr Turner. The financial sustainability and profitability of the farming sector is vital. Through the choices that the Government have made and voted on, they have demonstrated that when the revolving door of farming Ministers say that food security is national security, that is just warm words.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate. I welcome the Minister to his place. His natural passion and enthusiasm for this vital sector is evident in the zero parliamentary mentions he made of farming prior to his appointment, despite his having been elected in 2017. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best. For the good of the sector, I hope that he gets out and engages with the farming community more than his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). This debate is about financial sustainability for the farming sector. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have continually pulled the rug out from under our farmers. We have had the sudden and unannounced closure of the SFI scheme, the rapid acceleration of delinked payments, the introduction of the family farm and family business tax, the jobs tax and, soon, the fertiliser tax. The result? Record farm closures under this Labour Government, and greater food insecurity than we have seen before. Our farmers are fed up, worried and increasingly concerned about the future of their farming businesses and their livelihoods. I know that because, unlike the Government, the shadow DEFRA team and I have been out and about, travelling up and down the country, attending agricultural shows and speaking to farmers across the United Kingdom. We have been to the Royal Highland Show, the Royal Cornwall Show, the Royal Cheshire Show, the Lincolnshire Show, the Essex Country Show, the Balmoral Show in Belfast, and Cereals—just to name a few. The locations may vary, but the same theme comes out again and again: devastating cash flow challenges as a result of the fiscal decisions made by this Labour Government. Unlike in other professions, income from agriculture can be volatile. Farm businesses are price takers, and the determinants of the prices they receive are out of their control. By the time the crops or livestock reach the market, prices may have dropped, but goods must be sold anyway. Income schemes such as the SFI are so important—but not in the Government’s eyes, with their chop-and-change approach. Under this Government, the schemes are not providing any reassurance or support to the majority of farmers. Last year, the Government closed applications for the SFI scheme with no warning, and yet again they have announced a budget that does not meet farmers’ requirements.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am proud to be a member. I am grateful to everyone who signed this petition and I pay tribute to the lead petitioner, Jesy Nelson. She has used her personal experience and public platform to raise awareness of spinal muscular atrophy. We know that it is a rare neuromuscular genetic condition that causes muscle weakness, movement problems, and difficulties with breathing and swallowing, as well as tremors, and bone and joint problems. Although those symptoms are most often noticed in babies and toddlers, they can also start in teenagers and adults. This extremely cruel disease has touched many people across the country and beyond. That is evident, given the simple fact that the petition has nearly 150,000 signatures, including that of my constituent Nasser Iqbal. Nasser’s daughter was diagnosed with SMA type 1, the most severe form, three months after birth. She is unable to walk or eat due to nerve damage caused by her condition being left undiagnosed and therefore untreated in the first few months of her life. We know that every year in the UK, 48 babies are born with spinal muscular atrophy, with 60% having SMA type 1. Once symptoms begin, damage to motor neurones cannot be undone. However, there is clear evidence that babies diagnosed before symptoms appear have significantly better health outcomes, with many able to reach developmental milestones that would otherwise not be possible. Earlier intervention would have made a huge difference to Nasser’s daughter. I am proud to speak in this debate on her behalf, because she and many other young people are impacted by the absence of early screening. That is why the petition calls on the Government “to fund and help fast-track the process to add SMA to the NHS newborn heel-prick test” so that every baby is “screened at birth to allow early diagnosis and access to life-changing treatment.” Although screening for SMA in newborn babies is currently not recommended by the UK National Screening Committee, it has confirmed that an in-service evaluation of newborn screening for SMA will start in October 2026. However, the plans will include only seven of the 13 regions, which, as many Members have said, leaves approximately 163,000 babies without screening until as late as 2030 or 2031. I am disappointed that one of the areas not included in the ISE of newborn screening for SMA is West Yorkshire, and I am extremely concerned that it will leave my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley without access to this potentially lifesaving screening, despite the ever-growing need for it. Yorkshire has 1.5 times as many patients with SMA compared with national figures; in the last three years alone, the regional neuromuscular service in Leeds has diagnosed 10 infants with the most severe form of SMA. Two tragically died within their first year of life and two have survived, but are living with significant and lifelong disability. Neither child can stand or walk independently. They require night-time respiratory support and are unable to feed themselves without assistance. In comparison, the children diagnosed and treated pre-symptomatically have achieved their expected motor milestones, and they are sitting and walking as expected for their age. I pay tribute to the Leeds teaching hospital for reaching out to me before this debate. In particular, I thank Dr Anne-Marie Childs and her team of paediatric neurologists, who asked me to tell the Minister that we cannot be in a scenario where not every new-born baby in the UK has access to early diagnosis and life-changing treatment. I therefore call on the Minister to make sure that West Yorkshire and my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley are included as part of the early screening process.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that that announcement was made, but, as I reiterated in my speech, that provision does not include West Yorkshire or my Keighley and Ilkley constituents. The Minister said that a broadbrush approach was needed to gain data, and that has been rolled out to the areas that the Government have already announced, but surely it is necessary to include all areas, as many Members said. Will the Minister meet me or write to me about what steps can be taken to include areas such as West Yorkshire, Leeds, and Keighley and Ilkley as part of the screening programme?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. The reality is that, when dealing with such rare diseases, we are better casting the net far and wide to get as much data as possible. That was one of the points made to me by the Leeds teaching hospital. Dr Anne-Marie Childs is advocating for West Yorkshire to be included as part of the early screening process because, at the moment, it is a postcode lottery. Whether someone has access to early screening depends on wherever they happen to be born. The data collection would feed into national reassurance that the Government should be focusing on this issue. It pains me to say that right now a child born in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in West Yorkshire does not have access to early screening. SMA is a debilitating condition and, although it cannot be prevented, the outcomes are significantly better for babies who are diagnosed early. Looking at the progress made in Scotland, which began screening new-born babies for SMA in March based on in-service evaluations, I urge the Government to ensure that no child is left behind and that we roll out screening for every child, no matter where in this country they are born.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Minister explain, not only to me but to the businesses in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, why, if the explanatory memorandum accompanying the legislation clearly states that these regulations are “expected to have negative impacts on downstream businesses that use steel”, he and his Labour party are comfortable introducing it?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. My Keighley and Ilkley constituency is home to several businesses that have major concerns about the impact of this statutory instrument on them and their employees. Airedale Springs, Olicana Products and GESIPA have all been in contact with me about the proposed new tariffs, by which they have been completely blindsided. One of the team at GESIPA described the impact of the tariffs as “devastating”. The managing director of Olicana Products has warned that if this heavy-handed legislation passes unchanged, it will trigger a catastrophic chain reaction across every single UK industry that is reliant on these metals. Those businesses and business leaders have contacted me and many of my Conservative colleagues as they are deeply concerned about the steel industry. In their correspondence with me, they have been crystal clear that these measures, should they go ahead, will increase costs, reduce supply, weaken competitiveness and directly threaten thousands of manufacturing jobs, while doing little to increase domestic steel production. They are also concerned that the legislation is being rushed. They have had no time to adjust to the mechanisms that have been brought through, which will have severe cash-flow implications for their businesses. Let me read out directly some of the emails that have been sent to me. Olicana Products said: “We all want a thriving, strong UK steel sector. However, this poorly planned law will achieve the exact opposite. By choking off essential products”— and imports that are coming in to their business— “it will decimate our business and furthermore cause domestic steel consumption to plummet. We need to act immediately to force a government U-turn before irreplaceable damage is done to our business, our livelihoods and our economy.” Those are not my words. They are the words of a managing director who employs many of my Keighley and Ilkley constituents. Diana Scholefield, the managing director of GESIPA—a business that has been running in my constituency for 52 years—contacted me because she is deeply worried about cash-flow challenges. The company tells me that, despite the increase in employer national insurance and minimum wage having a direct impact on its cash flow, this is the biggest challenge that it has faced in the 52 years it has been running. That will potentially have a direct impact on employment levels across my constituency. In another email, Sean Parkinson, the managing partner of Airedale Springs, reiterated to me that: “Our steel material suppliers consider that UK steel production capacity does not exist to replace many of the products being restricted”, and that “these measures will increase costs, reduce supply, weaken competitiveness and directly threaten thousands of UK manufacturing jobs”. I say to the Minister—and all the Labour MPs sat opposite who seem to be more interested in looking at their mobile phones than at the detail of this legislation—that the explanatory memorandum states specifically that this delegated legislation is expected to have “negative impacts on downstream businesses that use steel.” It also states that “the amendments in this instrument are likely to result in higher prices for steel products and an increase in costs for user industries” and that: “Outside of the steel and fabricated metals industries, there are likely to be impacts on the machinery and electrical equipment, aerospace, and automotive sectors. The largest user of steel, the construction industry, could also face an increase in costs.” The memorandum also states that the instrument is most likely to impact “small and micro businesses”. As we prepare to vote on this key piece of delegated legislation, which is due to come into force on 1 July, let me ask the Minister and Labour MPs a question. If they have read the impact assessment, as I assume they have—there is no costed impact assessment associated with the regulations, which is, I suspect, because the Government do not know what the consequences will be and do not want to put that into the public domain—why on earth are they comfortable voting for this legislation when they know its negative implications for many constituents employed in the manufacturing sector and for UK jobs? I certainly will not be supporting it.