Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee with his extremely well thought-through and detailed opening remarks. I pay tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned, and to the advocacy groups that work tirelessly, to improve outcomes for brain cancer patients. As the petitioners request, investment in research is key. I join them—some are my constituents—in calling on the Government to increase research funding and to go further in legally enshrining the right to try genome sequencing, trials, immunotherapy, and repurposed drugs and vaccines. I will use my time to highlight some of the progress that has been made in treatment options, because there is some hope. Trials in the USA have shown very promising results for sonodynamic therapy as a treatment for children with the brain cancer known as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. DIPG is an inoperable brain tumour primarily affecting children, and it is deemed terminal on diagnosis. The only form of treatment offered is radiotherapy, which may prolong life for a few months at best. On average, the survival rate is less than 10 months. Sonodynamic therapy uses focused ultrasound to produce a light that interacts with an administered prodrug. It is being worked on now in the USA and progress is being made. I am delighted to say that St Mary’s hospital in London is following suit with some promising results. I am therefore keen to understand from the Minister what the Government’s plans are for rolling out this type of therapy across the UK, and in particular for rolling it out to trials of vulnerable children who are willing to get involved. I conclude by paying tribute once again to those of my constituents who signed the petition and want to see the Government do their bit.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Care in the Community · Hansard source

  More

  Back in 2023, the Conservative Government signed off £3.4 million for Keighley to build a new health and wellbeing hub to improve care in the community. We have plenty of brownfield sites and funding is secured, but we are progressing at a snail’s pace, with progress being made incredibly slowly. We are now in mid-2026, and no planning application has yet been submitted. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can unlock the project and get it delivered?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Care in the Community · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps he is taking to increase access to care in the community.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Water Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing this really important debate. He has been a staunch advocate of this issue since his election to Parliament, and I commend him on his efforts. He works closely with the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on this issue. I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of Vanessa Abbess, the constituent of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen; she has been a tireless campaigner on water safety since the death of her son, Joe, in a riptide current in 2023. I also want to acknowledge the work of several third-party organisations that have done so much good and important work on this issue, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK and Swim England, whose commitment to water safety and education has been tremendous and whose good work has saved lives. I also pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for the work it does in saving lives at sea. This is an emotive topic. I thank all Members who have spoken for their commitment on this issue and for the work they have done on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen rightly advocated for better cross-Government support and a dedicated Minister. Having previously been the water Minister, I know how much of a struggle it is to pull together all Ministers with responsibility for water, so I commend and agree with the point he raised about trying to achieve better interministerial involvement. I also commend his work on raising awareness around a national campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) rightly raised the important work of stakeholders such as national parks in this area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about swimming in dangerous locations such as quarries, as well as the need for increased awareness. The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) gave an impassioned speech about Chiedza, a young girl from her constituency who unfortunately passed away after getting into difficulty. I commend the work the hon. Lady is doing on behalf of her constituents, advocating for swimming lessons and increased awareness. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme also gave an impassioned speech about Sam, who unfortunately passed away in the River Don. He rightly raised the concerns of Sam’s family about increasing awareness and the role of legislators in putting pressure on stakeholders, such as water companies, and on the education system. I hope the Government will consider the key points in Sam’s law, as there are critical recommendations they could take forward. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) rightly mentioned challenges in winter months, as well as hot periods, and the importance of water safety. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again raised the importance of having water safety encompassed in the curriculum and spoke about the challenges facing West Coast Paddlers in gaining access to the leisure centre. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned the importance of creating safe spaces to swim outdoors; I wish her the best of luck with her lido application in York. I have my own challenges in Keighley. There was a tragedy in the summer of 2021 when a 27-year-old man passed away after getting into difficulties at Ponden reservoir. I put on record my thanks to the Keighley Sea Cadets, who work tirelessly on behalf of constituents to raise awareness around water safety. I was lucky enough to join them recently at Ponden Mill near Stanbury to see their great work. We have seen the terrible statistics that more than 19 people died in the water in one week during the most recent hot period. I reassure all hon. Members that we are committed to working cross-party with the Government to reduce the incidence of deaths in water, and increase the provision of swimming lessons and water safety education. We also need education for those involved in emergency situations. The figures are stark: between 2020 and 2025, more than 1,600 people died by accidental drowning, with three times as many drownings occurring during extreme heat as opposed to a typical summer’s day, and 47% occurring between May and August. As several hon. Members rightly mentioned, education is key to preventing deaths in water, and that must start as early as possible. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education announced extra support for schools in a bid to ensure that every child could swim and be safe in and around water by the end of primary school, as part of the sporting future strategy. That was backed by £320 million through the PE and sport premium, with measures including extra lessons for children who did not meet expectations after core lessons. Under this Government, work continues to improve water safety, such as the integration of the water safety code into new education guidance. I also welcome the additional funding put in place for this academic year for the PE and sport premium, which is used by primary schools to support swimming and water safety lessons. There is, however, much more to be done, as all Members have noted. There remains a major issue regarding access to opportunities. A Sport England report estimates that just 74% of children now leave school able to swim 25 metres, which is down from the figure before the pandemic. That is not just a gap in ability but starkly corresponds to the demographic areas those children come from. Only 37% of children from low-income families are able to swim 25 metres compared with 76% of children from more affluent backgrounds—a point noted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The result is that children from the most deprived areas are twice as likely to drown. I would be keen to understand from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address that inequality, not only in the curriculum but in access to swimming facilities. Another issue is the lack of suitable facilities in which water safety and water confidence can be taught. Swim England has found that 76% of publicly accessible water space has been lost over the last two decades. This is a twofold issue: on the one hand, water safety cannot be taught without pools, and on the other hand, the lack of publicly accessible water space could drive people to swim in unsafe spaces, as Members have noted. What are the Government doing to ensure that more facilities such as swimming pools are made available to our constituents, and that they remain open? In addition to increasing access to swimming pools and delivering swimming lessons, there is a great deal of work to do to ensure that the general public are aware of all aspects of water safety. It is about not just teaching people to swim but ensuring that they are aware of the risks presented by entering water. Cold water shock, not an inability to swim, is identified as the primary mechanism of accidental drowning in UK open water, triggered by sudden immersion in water below 15°. The RNLI and the National Water Safety Forum’s “Float to Live” campaign teaches a specific counter-response: if you fall into cold water unexpectedly, do not fight it; lean back, spread your arms and legs, and float. Investing in and supporting awareness campaigns such as “Float to Live” is vital if we are to significantly reduce the number of deaths in UK waters. I would therefore like to understand what the Government are doing to help those organisations. I would also like to understand what more the Water Minister feels could be done to the likes of bathing water regulations. It is constantly being advocated that the title of “bathing water” alone creates the presumption that the designated area is safe to swim in, but many of those designations are in river systems and on the coast where it is not necessarily safe to swim. The designations are more about water quality than the safety of the water. It is clear that, despite the best intentions of current and previous Governments, we are not doing enough when it comes to water safety and the prevention of drowning. Many have rightly declared drowning a silent epidemic, and we must work cross-party to ensure that there is greater preparedness among the general public when it comes to water safety. I reassure all Members that the Opposition will work with the Government on this issue on behalf of all our constituents.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The draft regulations will extend the current legislative deadlines for registration to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under UK REACH. They will also extend the period during which downstream users and distributors who were importing from the EU before the end of the EU exit implementation period can continue to import chemicals from the EU without submitting a full registration. The official Opposition support this measure, because ultimately it seeks to serve businesses and save them money by extending deadlines. The deadlines have already been extended twice, both times by the previous Administration: first in 2020, then in 2023. The Opposition agree that extending the deadlines further via the draft regulations will provide sufficient time for the Government to develop and introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of EU exit. This approach aims to reduce industry costs significantly. We welcome the findings of the impact assessment, which concludes: “This policy is not expected to negatively affect businesses of any size.” It also notes that the cost savings from discounted terms could benefit small and micro businesses “less proportionately” than larger businesses, and that this is “due to shorter extensions linked to later deadlines for smaller tonnages.” Of the 3,195 registered businesses in the chemical sector, 3,125—some 98%—are small, medium-sized and micro businesses, as the impact assessment outlines. Although we support the draft regulations, I acknowledge that there has been some third-party concern about the impact of the proposed changes and the risk of divergence from the EU in this policy area, as noted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which stated its concerns in a formal submission to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure those organisations that have concerns that divergence from EU regulations will occur only when there is a convincing and compelling case for it, and not simply for its own sake. We will support this delegated legislation.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Maternity Nurses, Nannies and the Infant Sleep Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech, particularly the three points that he has just made, with which I absolutely agree. I put on record my thanks to Maria Culley from the National Nanny Association, who has been working tirelessly on this issue, and who is a constituent of mine. I have met Children and Families Ministers under this Administration and previous Administrations and not managed to get too much traction, so I absolutely back everything that the hon. Gentleman is asking for. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only sleeping tutors and maternity nurses but nannies who are completely unregulated? We need Disclosure and Barring Service checks, a compulsory national register for nannies, and the minimum training standards that he is calling for. Finally, I would be over the moon to work with him to ensure that we can get those asks on the statute book.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this timely debate. We are here to talk about improving the UK visa system. That has to start with addressing one of the most cynical flaws in our system, which is the domestic abuse loophole. That loophole involves migrants falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in this country. That is a national issue, and a local one for me in West Yorkshire. Before I continue, let me be clear that those who are genuine victims of domestic abuse must be afforded the utmost protection by society and lawmakers, no matter their gender, the colour of their skin, the language they speak or where they come from. We cannot, however, allow that obligation to be used to allow people to con their way into this country and ultimately claim citizenship, falsely accusing those they relied on to get here of heinous crimes, potentially causing lifelong impacts for the innocent people with whom they entered a relationship. Under UK law, migrants who claim to be the victims of domestic abuse and who are on temporary visas as the partners of British citizens, can apply for permission to settle permanently if the relationship has broken down because of domestic abuse or violence. Permission to settle gives them the right to live, work and study here for as long as they like, and to apply for benefits if they are eligible. They can use that to apply for British citizenship. That rule, known as the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, was brought in to help genuine victims of abuse to secure permanent residence more quickly than through other routes, such as asylum. There is stark evidence, however, that that it is being used by male and female migrants to dupe British partners into relationships and marriage.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware of that, as it resonates with some of the casework I get in my constituency in Keighley. I am also aware of people being encouraged to fabricate false allegations by so-called online legal advisers. The scale of the problem has been amplified through a freedom of information request from the BBC. It found that a total of 5,596 migrants made applications for indefinite leave to remain as victims of domestic abuse in the 12 months up to September 2025, the most recent period for which the data was available. The BBC reported one case where a British mother, who had left her male partner after reporting him for rape, was subsequently accused by him of domestic abuse. She said that was a false allegation, made so that he could stay in the country. The allegations were never proven, but the partner was able to use them to avoid having to return to Pakistan. I know from the correspondence I get through casework in my constituency that there is a noticeable increase in the issue. There was one mother whose son and spouse came to reside with her family after a marriage had been entered into. A complaint of domestic abuse was made, not only against the son but the wider family, which resulted in the mother losing her job in a local school. The police explored it, which resulted in them taking no further action, but because the claim had been made, it caused huge stress for the family. The individual who made the claim was protected by the state, through the money they were being paid to reside in a different place and by being able to claim benefits. That is wrong, and I hope the Government will look at that loophole. Let me reassure Members across the House that it is, of course, right and proper that we offer the utmost protection to victims of domestic abuse. Immigration authorities will not get it right every time, but the numbers I cited earlier and my experience from constituency casework prove that this loophole is getting traction, and is being promoted for others to utilise. What reassurance can the Minister offer me that the Government are aware of this issue, are taking it seriously and have a plan to stop it escalating further?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the Minister is short for time. Will he write to me in response to my question about the loophole associated with domestic abuse claims?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is perhaps not surprising that we are here talking about yet another piece of legislation that will impose further harm and unnecessary burdens on our farmers. We have already had the family farm tax, which has now regrettably come into force, the added financial costs of the increase in employer national insurance contributions, and, of course, uncertainty and mixed messages on things such as fuel duty and the rising costs of fertiliser. After leaving the EU, the previous Conservative Government committed to transitioning farmers in England away from direct payments to domestic environmental land management schemes, or ELMS, as they became known, which pay for the direct delivery of public goods. To fund the new schemes, direct payments, now called delinked payments, were scheduled to be reduced gradually from 2021 to the end of 2028. This Labour Government, however, are accelerating that transition. The draft regulations propose a staggering 98% reduction on the first £30,000 tranche that a farmer would previously have received under direct payments, in effect limiting payments to a maximum of £600 per year in 2026 and 2027. When the previous Conservative Administration brought forward delinked payments, we intended a gradual phase-out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods. However, this Government accelerated that decline dramatically last year and have continued at a similar rate this year, which in effect has ended the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect. That was not announced before the last general election, so farmers were under a false illusion when the Labour Government came to power, which undermined their budgets at a time of already unprecedented worry and uncertainty. This is not a party political point that I make here, but one that reflects the concerns of the whole sector. When the percentage reductions for 2025 and 2027 were announced in June last year, the vice-president of the National Farmers Union said: “Having had significant reductions to delinked payments announced only last autumn in the Budget, to have further big reductions starting next year will be yet another financial blow to many farmers who haven’t had the time to effectively plan for them.” The then president of the Country Land and Business Association said that “the sharp fall in BPS payments was expected but is nonetheless unwelcome. It will hit especially hard those whose profit margins are now cut to the bone…While there might be a consolation that the new SFI 2026 scheme could be ready for applications in spring 2026, there is as yet no clarity on what that will look like and who will have access to it”. This Labour Government promised that farmers would be able to access new income streams as direct payments were phased out, but that has not happened. The SFI closed to applications in March 2025 and it remains closed. While I accept that the Government have committed to opening SFI 2026 this month, it is not open yet, and it will only be open for smallholdings of up to 50 hectares. Currently, farmers lack access to replacement support during this period of high cost inflation and market volatility, much of which has been brought on by policy decisions made by this Government. Many SFI 2023 agreements and countryside stewardship mid-tier agreements are due to expire at the end of this year and in early 2027. With no clarity on when farmers can expect to see an SFI 2027, or a further replacement from SFI 2026 opening to all from September, they face being locked out of funding schemes until early 2028 through no fault of their own, by which point, under these draft regulations, the delinked payments will in effect have ceased. Additionally, due to the first-come, first-served nature of the new SFI approach for 2026 and the long period of inaccessibility, demand for SFI 2026 in September is expected to be high. The NFU and the CLA have also expressed concerns about the capacity issues that the Rural Payments Agency is expected to experience. Farmers approaching the end of their environmental agreements face being unable to apply unrestricted for a new agreement until the window has already closed, due to the budget being allocated. Given the well-documented cash-flow crisis in the farming sector, what assessment has been made of the volatility impact on farming businesses that have had their basic payments reduced by at least 98% and are unable to apply for SFI, capital grants or countryside stewardship higher-tier schemes? I also note that no impact assessment is associated with these draft regulations. Why has no full impact assessment been undertaken by the Government, despite the policy change that we are debating having huge financial implications for many—in fact, probably all—farming businesses in England? We support the long-term fair transition of delinked payments, but we cannot do so at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the middle east has caused uncertainty about fuel and fertiliser prices and grain prices remain low, undermining arable farmers’ profitability, but it is not just external factors that add pressure on farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Labour Government have left many farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI window applications last year, the family farm and family business taxes, increased employer national insurance contributions and the Government’s refusal to consider the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to lower energy costs have had a cumulative impact. Ultimately, these draft regulations do not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability, let alone their profitability. That is why the Conservatives will vote against the passage of the regulations. I urge the Government to rethink their plans.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  If the Minister were speaking to a farmer, would she say that this is dancing on the head of a pin? We are talking about reducing an annual delinked payment to a farming business from a potential £30,000 to about £600. Given all the additional overheads placed on farming businesses that produce food, the Opposition believe that that is too quick a drop, and it comes without sufficient notification.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee; the lead petitioner, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe); and the many campaigners who have fought tirelessly, and continue to fight, for justice for the victims of child sexual exploitation. The petition is asking for “a statutory requirement on councils, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and all other related institutions to collect, record and publish the nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of child sexual offenders, including gang based crime”, and rightly so. It believes that to properly protect children and prevent the mistakes of the past, it is essential to collect and record all that information. I agree with the petition, which states that data would “protect children and inform public policy…allow for better understanding of offender demographics, ensure transparency, and support targeted safeguarding strategies.” It also states: “Without this information, critical patterns may be missed, weakening efforts to prevent abuse and protect vulnerable children.” I agree with this narrative, and I join the over 260,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition. Although I appreciate that the petition covers several areas, I would like to start by focusing on the importance of the retention of data in cases of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation. In her audit published in June last year, Baroness Casey rightly recommended a full national inquiry into grooming gangs. As part of her recommendations, as is set out clearly on page 151, Baroness Casey rightly said that it should be mandated that all local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies retain all relevant records. Any evidence or data that could help the national grooming gangs inquiry should be retained, and the Government should be mandated to inform that retention. After much back and forth with various Home Office officials, the previous permanent secretary at the Home Office, the previous Safeguarding Minister and the previous and current Home Secretary, I learned that it took the Home Office 212 days to issue that direction to our police forces and other key Home Office agencies instructing them to preserve those records after Baroness Casey’s report was published in June last year. That is nearly seven months after publication. I then learned that it took eight months for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to local authorities with the same instruction. That is a staggering failure at the heart of this Government to address a key recommendation from Baroness Casey. My first question to the Minister is “Why such a delay?” Secondly, what kind of records are likely to have been lost, or potentially destroyed, in the seven months that it took the Home Office to issue the specific instruction to police forces and the eight months that it took MHCLG to issue the same instruction to local authorities? That question is worth asking, because the reality is that many local authorities up and down the country resisted more openness and transparency on this issue for years—for decades—including Bradford council, whose area my constituency is in. Another key issue in cases of organised child grooming gangs is not only the lack of data, but the lack of certain types of data. In her audit, Baroness Casey stated: “The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years. Child sexual exploitation is horrendous whoever commits it, but there have been enough convictions across the country of groups of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds to have warranted closer examination.” I have seen that for myself in my Keighley constituency, within the Bradford district, where the vast majority of convictions have been of men of Asian ethnic background, whose offences were predominantly against white young girls. We have to be sensible when talking about this issue because, as Baroness Casey rightly found in her audit, only 37% of suspects had their ethnicity data recorded. That is simply not good enough, and addressing it is a key recommendation by Baroness Casey. I welcome the recommendation that the Government mandate the collection of ethnicity and nationality data on all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases; I only wish that it had come sooner. In my view, the very same approach should apply to the immigration status and religion not only of the victim, but of the perpetrator, so that we can get to grips with the complexity of this issue. A national inquiry is now taking place. The areas subject to local investigations will be announced by 13 July. Why on earth is that taking so long? I commend the work done by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, but is the information collected by his inquiry being fed into the national grooming gangs inquiry led by Baroness Longfield? It is crucial that that information is considered.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  The Crime and Policing Act did not go anywhere near far enough to provide the safeguarding mechanisms to protect vulnerable victims and survivors who have experienced heinous crimes of child sexual exploitation. I will not vote for poor, badly thought-through legislation introduced by this Government. Beyond the six that have been acted on already, what additional progress will be made on the 22 recommendations? I conclude by advocating that the Minister include Bradford and Keighley in the national grooming gangs inquiry.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister answer two questions? If the Government were confident enough to announce Oldham more than 18 months ago, why are they not confident enough to announce that Bradford and Keighley will be part of the national grooming gangs inquiry? On the £65 million cost, are the Government challenging the independent chair of the inquiry, Baroness Longfield? Last week she stated to me, in front of the Home Affairs Committee, that she felt that £65 million was about right, yet she has not announced which local areas, or how many local areas, the inquiry will look at.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that all hon. Members in this place have a duty to represent our constituents and to feed any information that we have to Baroness Longfield, as the chair of the national grooming gangs inquiry, so that we can make sure, now that the terms of references have been set, that the local inquiries that form part of that national inquiry take place in the right areas. That brings me to my key point. Keighley and the wider Bradford district is an area where people have been ignored and abandoned, at a local and national level, for far too long. For years people there have fought hard for our area to be included but they have been ignored. Since I was first elected to this place to represent the people of Keighley and Ilkley, I have stood alongside victims and survivors such as Fiona Goddard and alongside leading child abuse lawyers such as David Greenwood to call for one simple thing: a full independent inquiry should take place across Keighley and the wider Bradford district. These heinous crimes did happen and are happening right now. For decades, child sexual exploitation and gang-related grooming have haunted communities that I represent. Lives have been shattered. Trust has been broken. Far too often, those crying out for justice have been met with silence. My second question for the Minister is: will she announce in this debate that Keighley and the wider Bradford district will be included as part of the national grooming gangs inquiry? If the Government were confident enough in January 2025 to announce that Oldham would be included, why on earth are they not confident enough today to announce that Keighley and the wider Bradford district will be included? As I have said many times before, I fear that the scale of the issue across the Bradford district will dwarf that in places such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and Oldham, where previous inquiries took place. Bradford has been referenced a lot in relation to child sexual exploitation, and many victims and survivors have unfortunately been trafficked through the city. I would therefore like to hear a positive response from the Minister. My final point is about the cost of the national grooming gangs inquiry. The Government have allocated £65 million to that inquiry, but we are yet to understand which local areas will form part of it. My third question to the Minister is: will the Government expand the allocation of funds to the national grooming gangs inquiry if the inquiry’s chair, Baroness Longfield, deems that more money is needed because more areas need to be looked at as part of the inquiry?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I will also take the next intervention.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I completely concur with my right hon. Friend. I do not want the Government’s independent inquiry to be restricted by the amount of funds that it has been allocated. We need to make sure that the inquiry is robust, transparent and open, and that no stone is left unturned.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  If that was the case, why did Baroness Casey feel strongly enough to include this issue as part of a recommendation in the report?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely concur with the hon. Member’s point. Youth services are a key indicator. Many of those who work for local authorities engage with victims and survivors, and of course they have a safeguarding responsibility and an ability to spot the signs of abuse. If youth services are one of those mechanisms, and if certain local authorities say that funding is an issue, then yes, of course—if that results in the right outcomes. My final point is that there is always much focus on the national grooming gangs inquiry, but it seems that there is less focus on the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which was an excellent piece of work by Professor Alexis Jay. It made 22 recommendations, but here we are, 22 months into this Government, and only six of those recommendations have been acted on. I fully acknowledge that the report came out in 2022 and that the previous Administration did not make enough progress on the recommendations in the 20 months that they had to act on them before the general election, but we are now 22 months into the new Government. My fourth question is: what additional progress are the Government making on implementing all 22 IICSA recommendations? I acknowledge and welcome the progress that has been made.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Special Educational Needs Support · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I met Alice Jones, the headteacher of Oxenhope primary school, to talk about the funding challenges it is facing in supporting children with SEND and her deep concerns about this Government’s planned SEND reforms, which include shifting EHCPs to individual support plans, therefore limiting protection for EHCPs to only the most complex cases. That will reduce the necessary financial support for children in mainstream schools. What reassurance can the Minister give Mrs Jones, and the many other headteachers in my constituency who have contacted me, who believe that the Government’s SEND reforms will not address the current challenges?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Special Educational Needs Support · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps the Government are taking to support children with SEND at school.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case. I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place. My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs. The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address. First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published? My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.