Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Oct 2024 · Bradford District parking charges · Hansard source

  More

  Across the Bradford district, we are now hearing worrying stories of small businesses losing nearly half their footfall due to the extortionate new parking charges being introduced by leaders on Bradford Council, as well as of residents in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley being forced to pay to park outside their own homes. I certainly will not stay silent on this issue while hard-working people pay the price. The petition states: The petition of residents of the Bradford District, Declares that the proposed increase in car parking charges across the Bradford District and the introduction of new charges for residents’ parking permits will place an unfair financial burden on residents and workers; notes concern that individuals are now being required by Bradford Council to pay to park outside their own homes; and further declares that new charges will adversely affect small businesses and retail outlets. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Bradford Council to reverse the proposed increases to car parking charges, and the new parking permit charges, across Keighley and Ilkley. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003018]

• 29 Oct 2024 · Ilkley Lido parking charges · Hansard source

  More

  The future of our iconic Ilkley lido, a crown jewel of my constituency since 1935, is under threat. Despite that, Bradford council’s latest act has been to introduce parking charges at the site for the first time ever, without public consultation and at odds with every other pool in the district. This petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, and the wider Bradford district, notes these concerns, recognises the undue financial burden this will cause residents and local clubs who utilise the car park, including the Olicanian cricket club, which has no option but to use the Ilkley lido car park, and further notes that the Ilkley district is being treated unfairly by Bradford council compared with rest of the Bradford districts. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, Declares that for years, visitors have relied on free parking at Denton Road Car Park to make use of the Ilkley lido and other facilities; notes concern that Bradford Council have proposed parking charges at the popular site for the first time, which will impose an undue financial burden on residents and local clubs who utilise the car park, including Olicanian Cricket Club; and further notes that Ilkley is being treated unfairly compared to other pools and leisure facilities across the Bradford District, and that there has been a lack of consultation with the community. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Bradford Council to honour its previous commitment to ensure that parking charges at Denton Road Car Park do not adversely affect Ilkley Lido users and Olicanian Cricket Club, staff, players and members. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003017]

• 23 Oct 2024 · Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this important debate. As has been acknowledged by all hon. Members, the UK’s waterways are the country’s lifeblood. When they are in a good condition, it is beneficial not only for the environment, but for public health. It is also crucial for biodiversity and local communities that rely on the waterways—not only for recreational purposes, but for tourism. The last Government were determined to take a positive stance on improving water quality. To do that, however, we needed to understand the situation that water companies were in. That is why we specifically focused on increasing the monitoring of outfalls from the start, taking a monitoring rate for storm overflows from 7% in 2010 under the last Labour Administration to 100% at the end of 2023. In March 2024, we fast-tracked £180 million of investment that had to be allocated within the last financial year by water companies, with an expected reduction of 8,000 sewage spills in English waterways. We also linked shareholder dividends to environmental performance, quadrupled water company inspections and launched a whistleblowing portal for water company workers to report breaches.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for joining the debate; I see that he came in right at the last minute just to make that contribution. My answer is no. When we were in Government, we absolutely wanted to embolden the regulators with as much power as they required, which is why we specifically linked dividends to environmental performance so that Ofwat had more power to hold water companies to account. Not only that: we increased the amount of funding allocated to the Environment Agency and empowered the whistleblowing portal so that employees within water companies, or indeed within the EA or any of the other regulators, could make their concerns known. In that way, we as the Government—and now the incoming Government—could make proper progress and ensure that proper, positive change was implemented to improve water quality. The financial stability of the water companies is, of course, a serious issue, and that affects our constituents through not only potential price increases, but performance-related issues. Sensibly, Ofwat expects water companies to maintain a level of financial headroom to manage short-term volatility and shocks to their financial structures, and to meet their obligations and commitments, which are set both by Government and internally by the regulator. Above all else, however, consumers must be protected so I welcome the fact that Ofwat strengthened its powers to improve financial resilience. That includes stopping water companies from paying dividends when financial resilience is also at risk. The new Government have said that cleaning up England’s rivers, lakes and seas is a priority and to achieve that the Water (Special Measures) Bill has been introduced through the House of Lords into Parliament. Perhaps I should not have been so surprised that that is effectively a reworked version of the policies introduced under the last Government. In the Bill, the Government pledge to introduce new powers to block bonuses for executives of water companies that pollute our waterways —something announced by the last Conservative Government. However, the powers are not quite the promises constantly regurgitated by the Labour party when they were out on the doorstep— they were telling many of their voters that water company bosses would end up “in the dock” if their water company had been falling foul of environmental permitting obligations. The Water (Special Measures) Bill simply does not achieve that. By introducing the Bill, the new Government have frustrated not only campaigners but investors who want to invest in the sector. Opposition Members spent many a day out on the doorstep also promising that they would take swift and bold action, but as we have seen from today’s announcement of a new commission, a new review and a new taskforce, the Government are just throwing the hard decisions into the long grass and simply kicking the can down the road.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely welcome anything that will improve the water sector. When I was a Minister in the Department, many issues needed to be addressed. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman commented in his speech that the Minister was working at pace, but the review will take at least a year to implement. I want to ask the Minister, as I did the Secretary of State in the House earlier: when will the positive recommendations from the review be implemented? We know that we are entering price review 2024, which exists from 2025 to 2030, but when is the industry likely to see any positive implications of the results of the commission that has been instigated today? The Government have also confirmed that they will work with farmers to reduce agricultural pollution. I understand that Ministers have said that that will be through a series of “proportionate and effective regulations, advice and incentives to deliver improvements”. Can the Minister clarify how that will roll out? What new regulations does the Department anticipate bringing in? The farming budget is rumoured to be slashed by at least £100 million, so how will the Government incentivise farmers through public money to do the right thing in reducing run-off from fields and from their agricultural activities? Will the Minister also outline whether any regulatory easement will be applied to water companies going forward? Many Members have raised concerns to do with Thames Water and the like, but I would like to specifically understand whether the Minister, her colleagues or the Secretary of State are looking at implementing a regulatory easement, as the Opposition would not want to see lower standards, the relaxation of environmental permits or a reduction in agreed levels of investment by any water company, irrespective of their financial circumstances. Sound management of water companies is vital if customers are to receive the high level of service that they expect, and better environmental performance must be driven forward.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability · Hansard source

  More

  On the commission, would the Minister be kind enough to outline to the House the timings? The PR24 process, which Ofwat is looking at, comes into effect next year and will be in place until 2029-30. Will any positive recommendations from the commission take effect within that price review period?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement. Fourteen years in opposition—and this is what the Labour party has to offer. Labour Members have had more than a decade to craft a clear package of policies, listen to campaigners and prepare to govern, yet what they have brought to the House today illustrates no sign of any ambition. This is a sign of hesitation. It is a way to delay the difficult decisions and buy themselves more time. It is part of a growing trend that unfortunately we are seeing consistently from this new Labour Government, across all Departments: announce a review, a taskforce and yet another commission, and hope the public do not notice that really they never had much of a plan at all. That approach is simply not going to wash with the bill payers. Before the election, the Secretary of State toured the country with campaigners like Feargal Sharkey, promising radical change to the sector. He is now in power, and what has he actually achieved so far? He spent the entire election campaign telling voters that he wanted to put water company bosses in the dock, but we can see from the Government’s announcements on the Water (Special Measures) Bill that it will achieve no such thing, as campaigners and industry experts have already pointed out. Nor will the Bill provide any reassurance whatever for investors. Rather marvellously, the Secretary of State has managed not only to frustrate campaigners, but to disenfranchise investors from any long-term aspirations to invest in the sector. The Secretary of State says that he has announced a ban on water company bonuses. Hang on: that was a policy that we brought forward in our time in government and that the Secretary of State is now attempting to reannounce and pass off as his own. It was the Conservatives who announced a ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, linked shareholder dividends to environmental performance, quadrupled water company inspections, fast-tracked investments to cut spills and launched a whistleblowing portal for water company workers to report breaches. It is surprising to hear the Secretary of State claim that his Government are truly serious about this issue, when their proposals are less firm than the measures delivered by the previous Government. He could take real action right now by progressing the last Conservative Administration’s plans for an automatic ban on water company bosses’ bonuses when offences take place. Rehashing announcements already set in motion by the Conservative Government, putting forward policies that will not actually put more pressure on water company bosses and then simply pressing pause on a year-long review will not result in the widespread change that Labour promised its voters. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the announced review will make no recommendations that affect the current price review ’24 process, meaning that there will be no chance of the Government considering making any significant change until 2029 at the earliest. Will he provide an outline of the timeframe associated with actual recommendations from the review being implemented and put in place? When is any real benefit from this further review, taskforce or commission likely to be experienced, not only for the water industry, in terms of infrastructure improvements, but for the bill payer and the environment? It seems to me that the Secretary of State is just kicking the can down the road with another review, another taskforce and another commission, and removing himself from any of the tough decisions. The Secretary of State said that the review would have no impact on the price review ’24 process. Will he outline exactly when the positive impacts will come? By my calculations, it will not be until 2029 at the earliest. Will he also outline the impact of the review on the measures proposed in the Water (Special Measures) Bill? What will be done if the recommendations do not sit comfortably with the current proposals? One cannot help concluding that the Secretary of State is out of depth on this issue, cannot deliver on the tough language that he promised in the run-up to the general election and is now doing nothing more than attempting to kick the tough decisions down the road and into the long grass. This Secretary of State seems to be all bark and no bite.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pub and Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister will get to it, but I am really keen to understand some of the specifics of what he is doing in his role as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade. What is the nature of his conversations with the Chancellor and the Treasury, specifically around business rates relief, VAT threshold, VAT duty, beer duty and the concerns raised by the likes of UKHospitality with the Employment Rights Bill? I am sure he is getting there, but this side of the House is keen to understand what he is doing in his role in the conversations with the Chancellor on the forthcoming Budget.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pub and Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, pubs are a huge part of our local community. They are our meeting place, a place to socialise, and a place to wind down after a busy week or even a busy day, and can also provide a vital place to help to address loneliness, improve mental health and wellbeing, and address socialisation. I aim to recognise the great work of pubs through my own best pub award, drawing positive attention to some of the fantastic pubs from across my constituency. Previous winners include the Craven Heifer in Addingham, which does a mighty meat pie; The Brown Cow in Keighley, where hon. Members will find one of the best-poured pints of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord; the Goats Head in Steeton, one of the friendliest pubs embedded in the heart of the community; and of course the Haworth Steam Brewery, which always has a fantastic atmosphere and a great vibe, and which is home not only to its own beers but to Howarth gin. One of the common themes in what all those pubs have told me is that small businesses across our hospitality sector constantly face that battle against Government red tape. That is why the last Government raised the VAT threshold to £90,000, which meant that over 28,000 businesses benefited from not needing to be VAT-registered. I would like a reassurance from the Minister that this Government will not look to reduce that threshold or implement a VAT cut. I am also concerned by other measures that the Government are rumoured to be looking at, such as employer national insurance or business rates relief— I urge the Government to keep that business rates relief in place—as well as the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday. I cannot stress enough how concerned small businesses are about the challenges that will be created by that Bill. Also, given that the economic analysis was released so late, what are the real unintended consequences to small businesses right across the country?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) on his maiden speech. Knowing his constituency a little, I can guarantee that the weather is not the link between Airdrie and Rome. I congratulate him on taking his place in this House. Today’s debate is deeply important, and it will have huge ramifications for businesses of all sizes across the country. Hiring new staff is a big moment for small businesses, like many in Keighley and Ilkley, and it comes with huge potential but also risk. That is why many businesses in my constituency have contacted me in advance of the introduction of this Bill to express their concerns about the proposals before us today. At a time when we need to grow the economy, we do not need a Bill that the Federation of Small Businesses has described as “rushed…clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.” It has to be noted that this Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on smaller businesses compared with larger companies that have their own HR departments. Simply put, Labour’s day one rights and other similar measures are worrying for many small businesses across the country. The Government have made this situation worse by adding clause after clause of clarification, exception, regulation and definition, in an attempt to micromanage every possible situation for businesses across the country. This has created a quagmire of regulatory jargon that small businesses will simply have to cope with, and they will not be able to cope. The fear of falling foul of these regulations has been made clear to me by many businesses in Keighley and Ilkley. The Bill will also prevent the backbone of our economy from hiring staff, expanding and growing our economy. Even the Government’s own economic analysis stipulates that the risks are highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market, such as low-paid workers, disabled workers and the youngest workers, who are still gaining the experience and skills they require.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the issue is that the Bill is lacking in detail? The issues he is discussing have been identified and indeed referenced in the Government’s own economic analysis, and we cannot get into the detail of this debate without having that level of information on the face of the Bill.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend highlights that this Bill will not give businesses the certainty and confidence to recruit individuals who need that little bit more experience to get into the job market. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis points to an unintended consequence: “Where businesses cannot absorb the increase in labour costs, they may look to pass them onto workers by reducing expenditures that benefit workers (e.g. staff training) or scaling back future improvements to T&CS (e.g. wage growth).” This is not a pro-growth Bill, and it is not even a pro-work Bill; it is a pro-union Bill. The Government have even said this themselves. Their plan to make work pay has referred to this Bill as an “Employment Rights Union Bill”. Perhaps that is because the Bill is chock full of changes to union regulation made by our previous Conservative Government—changes that were specifically designed to protect the public from the unscrupulous practices of the unions and their more militant members. Minimum service provisions were introduced by the last Government specifically to protect the public from being caught in the crossfire between the unions and the Government—yet, by lifting those restrictions with this Bill, Labour is showing that it is more interested in appeasing its union bosses than in ensuring that minimum service is guaranteed throughout any dispute between the public sector and the Government.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This again highlights the point that there is so much detail yet to be released into the public domain about this Bill. I highlighted this before. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had that detail, we could provide more reassurance to the small and larger businesses dealing with the challenges he has mentioned?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have spoken to and received correspondence from many businesses, both small and large, in my constituency, but not one gave the Bill their full backing. In fact, they raised concerns about the relationship between the employer and employee being tampered with by the Government. One of the most unsurprising parts of the Bill is clause 48, in which the Government want to force union members to pay into the political fund of the union, unless they explicitly decide to opt out. No matter what views hon. Members may have about unions, this clause is simply not right; working people should not be paying into political funds without giving their prior consent, especially when that money ends up in the pockets of a political party. Having received over £29 million in donations from the unions, we know which political party that money will end up going to—the party in government; and all this from a self-proclaimed Government of supposed transparency. Every employment is different, every job is different and every circumstance is different, but this Bill fails to recognise that.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Flooding: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Building on that point, many of our farmers—not only across Bedfordshire, but across the whole of the country—are facing their second serious crop losses in a growing period. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly frustrating that, despite the last Conservative Government having allocated £50 million through the farming recovery fund, many farmers who urgently need that money—money that was guaranteed to get out of the door—are not yet receiving it from the new Administration?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Government Support for the RSPCA · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate. Having interacted with her many times in the previous Parliament, when she was a shadow Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I know that she cares deeply about animal welfare issues. It is good to see her championing those issues again—what better way than by securing an important debate on the RSPCA in its 200th anniversary year? It is thanks to the hard work of bodies such as the RSPCA, covering enforcement, education and campaigning, that the UK is the G7 nation highest on the world animal protection index. I welcome Chris Sherwood, the chief executive of the RSPCA, and his team to the Public Gallery. The RSPCA’s work is truly staggering in scale and spans more than two centuries of dedication. In 2023 alone, the RSPCA responded to more than 110,000 incidents and provided more than half a million hours of care to animals needing treatment or rehabilitation. We must not forget that the RSPCA receives a call on its cruelty and advice line every 32 seconds. Nearly 10,000 people offer their time as volunteers to the RSPCA, which is truly commendable. This monumental effort provides thousands of wild animals, pets and livestock with care and protection from cruelty. Vitally, the RSPCA also conducts much work with animal owners to deliver important advice on how best to care for their animals. I agree with all Members present who have made positive comments about the RSPCA. It is a real success story, showing how people across the country can come together to make a difference on something they care deeply about. It is fantastic that we live in a country where people are empowered to make a difference and feel free to act on their convictions without relying solely on state inspectorates. As has been highlighted, the RSPCA receives almost no Government funding, operating through charitable donations and its internal fundraising operations. The RSPCA plays a vital role in the enforcement of our animal welfare laws. Through private prosecutions, every one of us has the right to bring forward a prosecution where we feel a crime has been committed, and the RSPCA regularly does this through a sponsoring individual. I hope the Government will continue to support private prosecutions; they are a vital part of our legal system, ensuring the law is owned and accessible to us all, and not just the state. Of course, the RSPCA carries out this work under the law, and I will take a moment to highlight the previous Government’s work to strengthen the legal protections for animals. Since leaving the European Union, we have had greater freedom to determination our own animal welfare laws, including passing the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—a landmark piece of legislation. The Act created the Animal Sentience Committee, which provides expert advice to Government on animal welfare reforms. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 also delivered on the previous Government’s commitment to ban the export of live animals, ending the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by their export. Several Members have already spoken in this debate of the Act being a good piece of legislation. In 2016 and 2023, the Conservative Administration made changes to the law requiring dogs and cats to be microchipped in England, ensuring that they can be reunited with their owners. It was good to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), whom I welcome to Westminster Hall, on microchipping specifically. In 2019, wild animals were banned in circuses, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum possible sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. I shall pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) around the work that the previous Administration were doing collectively and with our devolved nations. I hope that the Minister continues the dialogue with all devolved nations—I am sure he will—to ensure that we can work at pace on improving animal welfare legislation. I urge the Government to continue at pace with the key areas of work that we were doing on livestock worrying. In particular, we need to ensure that the toughening of regulations through the implementation of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill continues to receive support from the Government. Too often, time and time again, we hear that farmers are seeing their own livestock being killed or seriously savaged—seriously injured—as a result of people taking their dogs across fields. This needs to stop. I therefore hope that the Government will introduce that piece of legislation, and that it can become law. I seek confirmation from the Minister that that will be the case. It is only right that those who are irresponsible with their pets, when privileged to pass across someone else’s land, feel the full consequences of their actions. I thank the civil service team for their assistance not only to me but to previous Ministers in the work on the pieces of legislation that we introduced. For some time the RSPCA has been campaigning on the distress caused to animals by the irresponsible use of fireworks. That issue is particularly relevant in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, where fireworks are regularly set off throughout the year, late into the evening and sometimes at all hours of the night. That causes huge distress to pets and other animals—not to mention their owners, struggling to sleep. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the Minister what work the Government plan to undertake to enforce our existing firework laws, and whether he believes that it is necessary to toughen up existing legislation in this area. As all Members have highlighted through their contributions today, we are a nation of animal lovers, and what better way to celebrate that than by holding today’s debate and celebrating the work of the RSPCA over the past 200 years? Again, I would like to champion the work that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), has been doing on raising animal welfare matters. I hope that she will continue to champion that cause from the Government Benches, and I hope that, with continued cross-party support, the RSPCA will continue to deliver the fantastic care that it already does for animals throughout the country.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Farming and Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Food security is national security, and in a time of rising global uncertainty, we must support the British farmer and the British food and drink sector to deliver high-quality domestic food for our economy and our national security. That means providing farmers and growers with the certainty they deserve. Unfortunately, in recent weeks and over the course of this debate, we have seen what happens when a Member for one of the least rural constituencies in the country is put in charge of the countryside. Some £50 million of the farming recovery fund is not yet paid out. Some £75 million ring-fenced for internal drainage boards has not yet been distributed. There is no commitment on the £220 million for farm innovation and productivity grants. There are reports that the farming budget is about to be slashed, leaving uncertainty and farmers facing a cliff edge. While the first assault of this Labour Government has been on pensioners right across the country, I fear that farmers are next on their hit list. The Secretary of State has had the chance in this debate to stand up for farmers and to confirm that the farming budget and other schemes will be protected. Instead, he seems to have already surrendered to the Chancellor, suggesting a cut of £100 million. I fear that it will be much more. As we know, Labour could only bring itself to include 87 words in its manifesto on its plan for farmers, which stands in contrast to our Conservative Government’s commitment to food security and our rural sector by putting food at the centre of policymaking. We introduced the food security index and an annual food security report, and we set out plans to introduce legally binding targets to enhance our food security. We established the farm to fork summit, held at Downing Street, bringing together key stakeholders from across the food and farming sector. That was all to ensure that the Government’s Departments were aligned on this agenda. We were willing to look farmers in the eye, to engage directly with the whole agricultural sector and to make sure that its priorities were heard across the whole of Government. I ask the Minister: why is the Prime Minister not guaranteeing the same level of engagement and reporting? I congratulate the new Members who gave their maiden speeches: the hon. Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), as well as my friend, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), with whom I went to our local comprehensive school in Lincolnshire. I look up to the Gallery and I can see not only his mother but my secondary school teacher looking down at me. I welcome Mrs Taylor to the House. I am sure she will be proud of her son, who has got a seat on these Benches. We have all collectively agreed in our speeches on the need for certainty right now for our farmers. At a time when farmers need to plan, Labour is offering them a farming manifesto that could be placed on a postcard. That is exactly why we have had to secure this debate today, bringing Ministers from the Department to the Chamber, all with the best interests of giving our new Labour Government the best chance to stand up for our farmers. In the past 100 days in office, we have seen that the Secretary of State is too weak to stand up for our farmers and too weak to even stand up for his own Department against the Chancellor’s red pen. As has been said, we have experienced the wettest 18 months on record. That cannot go unanswered, and thousands of farmers across the country are being crippled by crop losses and damage to their fields. In fact, farmers are already fearing for their second year without any crop at all. The £50 million pledged by the last Conservative Government was designed specifically to support farmers hit by flooding, and it was ready to go when we left office. Farmers on the ground, however, say that they have not seen a penny of it. Where is that money? Why has it not been delivered to the farmers who desperately need it? The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and I also pledged £75 million for internal drainage boards to give them the investment they needed to protect the worst hit agricultural land from flooding. Again, some small amounts have been released, but the vast majority of the funds have not been released by the Department. Why is that? We know that the Labour party’s grasp on the public finances is tenuous at best, but this is vital money for our farmers, with businesses on the brink of collapse. Do Ministers realise that for every day that goes by without that support, another farmer gets closer to shutting up shop? Labour has a choice in the debate and in bringing forward the Budget this month. My advice to the Secretary of State is to pick up the phone, speak to the Chancellor, back British farming, fight for the farming budget in full and deliver for farmers up and down the country.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Many constituents across the Worth valley, Keighley and the wider area are deeply concerned about proposals to construct 65 wind turbines on Walshaw moor in Calderdale. That development will have a hugely detrimental impact on the carbon storage capacity of the peat bogs and on the ecology, but also on local communities, and I am staunchly opposed to it. Constituents are concerned that as a result of Labour’s choice to remove the moratorium on the development of onshore wind farms, that development is more likely to take place. Could we have a debate in Government time on the negative impacts of the Government’s choice to remove the moratorium on onshore wind farms?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Water Pollution: Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  Sound management of water companies is of course vital if customers are to receive the high level of service they expect and environmental performance obligations are to be strictly adhered to. Some water companies are better managed than others, so will the Secretary of State guarantee that in his efforts to hold water companies to account, no offer of a regulatory easement will be provided—in other words, no permission to lower standards, relax environmental permits or reduce agreed levels of investment will be provided to any water company, no matter their financial circumstances, by the Government or the regulator?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Water Pollution: Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. So there we have it: the Secretary of State’s first outing at the Dispatch Box, and he was not able to clearly answer the question I asked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in fulfilling his obligation to hold water companies to account, he will not issue regulatory easements, no matter their financial circumstances? Will he answer that question clearly right now from the Dispatch Box?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to voice my strong opposition to the Labour Government’s cruel choice to scrap the winter fuel allowance for an estimated 10 million pensioners across the country. I have been contacted by hundreds of pensioners in my constituency who are all incredibly concerned about the dire consequences of this Government’s decision. I met many of them in surgeries and at Keighley agricultural show this weekend, and they are telling me that they are going to struggle to pay their bills this winter. Statistics show that just over 64,000 pensioners across the Bradford district, including 20,000 in my constituency, will be negatively impacted as a result of the Labour Government’s decision. That, quite frankly, is a disgrace. Citizens Advice, Age UK and hundreds of charities across the UK have also come out against these proposals, warning that low-income households that are already struggling to make ends meet will be forced this winter into impossible choices between heating their homes or putting food on the table. It is incredibly disappointing to see the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) from the Bradford district, vote with the Government this evening, ensuring that she does not stand up for the wider Bradford district, as I will be doing. It is Labour’s choice that we are putting pensioners at risk as a result of this decision, and Labour’s choice that is putting my constituents, pensioners who are vulnerable, in the dire position of having to decide whether they heat their homes or put food on the table this winter. I only hope that quick changes will be made to ensure that pensioners are looked after in the run-up to winter.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Waste Crime: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I think the Minister needs 20 minutes to sum up, and it is only fair to give that to her. Does the Minister agree that when landfill sites, or sites of a similar nature, are given initial planning permission, a bond should be put in place to deal with remediation costs and compensation payments, for example, so that if a dodgy operator like the one we have seen at Walleys Quarry does not adhere to the conditions it has signed up to or goes bust, local residents in Newcastle-upon-Lyme or elsewhere are not exposed to the costs?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Waste Crime: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise—it is because I worked in Newcastle-upon-Tyne for a long time. I believe that such a bond was not put in place when John Prescott awarded the initial planning consent for the site. Does the Minister agree that the taxpayer should not have to pay a penny towards the costs associated with the remediation or clean-up works, or indeed the enforcement programme that the Environment Agency should carry out when we know an operator is in the wrong? It must be the polluter that pays, not the constituents of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme or the local council. Further, does the Minister agree that when we talk about “polluter pays”, any fine that the EA imposes should include an element of compensation for those who have been impacted? Finally, does she think that the Environment Agency is fit for purpose in its current format as a robust regulator and enforcer? I genuinely wish the Minister well on this issue. She has my full support in seeking a closure notice for the site.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Waste Crime: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate, and I welcome him to the House. I also send him and his father best wishes following his father’s surgery yesterday. It is good to see the Minister in her place for our second debate this week. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to all the officials who worked with me when I was lucky enough to be in what I think is the best Department in Government, specifically on the waste and resources strategy. I should be grateful if she would not mind passing on my thanks, particularly to Emma and Clare in the waste resources team. I shall start my speech by echoing comments made by colleagues throughout this debate on the dangers of the costs of waste crime to local communities, which are undoubtedly huge. The Environment Agency’s national waste crime survey 2023 report stated that, “the waste industry estimate costs to the English economy total £1 billion annually through evaded tax, environmental and social harm, and lost legitimate business.” That impact is of course not only monetary; waste crime in its many forms poses a significant threat to our environment. Illegal dumping and the improper disposal of hazardous waste contaminate our land, water and air. Those pollutants can take years—if not decades—to break down, causing long-term damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. They poison our water supplies, degrade our soils and harm wildlife, leaving a legacy of destruction that future generations must deal with. Most pressing is the extremely negative impact on communities up and the country that are forced to deal with the damaging consequences that harmful pollutants and emissions can have. As we are all constituency MPs, we know that we have residents who are being directly impacted in our constituencies, whether that be from fly-tipping or waste crime of a more serious nature. That is something that my constituents unfortunately experience in Keighley, Ilkley, Craven and the wider Worth valley. I shall devote the rest of my speech specifically to Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme, on which I completely sympathise with the residents, businesses and wider community of not just Newcastle-under-Lyme, but Silverdale and the wider Stoke-on-Trent area. They have been fighting this issue for a significant number of years—far too many years—and I commend the predecessor of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Aaron Bell, on his tireless campaigning, over the four years that he was lucky enough to be in this House, in search of a solution. Aaron Bell worked with his constituents to seek a way forward by trying to hold to account not only the operator of Walleys Quarry but the regulator and enforcer, the Environment Agency. He was also instrumental in working with the Stop the Stink campaign, and I am sure that the new hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will continue the good work of his predecessor, as he has done by securing this very debate. I was lucky enough to be a Minister in what is probably the best Department in Government for a short time, from November 2023 to the general election. In that time, I visited Newcastle-under-Lyme and Silverdale to meet campaigners, local councillors, residents and the previous MP, to hear directly from them about the negative consequences that Walleys Quarry was having, and I deeply sympathised with the points that they made. As a result of those meetings, I made it clear that the Environment Agency over a period of time had failed in its duties and failed local residents. On the strength of what has been said today and despite the, to be frank, repeated warnings given to the Environment Agency by many, including myself when I was lucky enough to be in the Department, it seems that the agency’s attitude is that the operator will clean up its act by itself—which is simply not the case. Residents’ concerns about toxic fumes have been raised since 2012, albeit largely ignored by the Environment Agency as the regulator, meaning that the ongoing situation continues to have a substantial negative impact on the community, not just economically but on its health and wellbeing. The reality is that the Environment Agency’s actions have gone nowhere near far enough, and in my view the landfill site needs to be closed altogether. The Minister will know that those are exactly the points that I was trying to put across to the Environment Agency during my short time in the Department. As she will also know, given that she seems to have been sufficiently briefed on the previous meetings, I was so disheartened by the Environment Agency’s actions that I requested weekly meetings with its team to understand sufficiently what actions it was taking as the regulator and the enforcer. Public hearings held in July demonstrated the serious public health issues arising from fumes from the site, with Staffordshire’s director of health and care highlighting the negative impact on public health and the risk that the noxious gases pose for health, both in the short and long term. When I met residents, one of the other huge concerns they rightly raised, along with the direct negative impact on them, was the impact on the local economy, not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme but across the wider Stoke-on-Trent area. Businesses, cafés, shops, a sports centre, a sports club that I was lucky enough to visit and even a local school are all being negatively impacted. Again, had the Environment Agency taken robust action, it could have reduced the financial, environmental and social impacts.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Waste Crime: Staffordshire · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, monitoring is incredibly important, because we need the data to be able to hold those who pollute to account, and the regulator needs the data to be able to take appropriate enforcement action, as the Environment Agency should do. But that data has to be collected appropriately, which the EA has not done, in my view, and the datasets have to be accurate. Looking back, there was a calibration issue with the datasets that were being collected, which meant that the Environment Agency had to issue a further apology. In my view, it is completely unacceptable. That raises the bigger question, which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has already asked, whether the Environment Agency is fit for purpose in its current format. All the challenges that I am laying out today are things that I experienced in my short months at the Department. This is simply not good enough action by the Environment Agency. As I have stipulated, the site should be closed. Again, that is something that I advocated while in the Department. As the hon. Member said, this leads to the bigger question: is the Environment Agency fit for purpose? In the debate earlier in the week I put some questions to the Minister and sought a response, and I will do so again today. If she is not able to give me an answer now—I quite appreciate that she may not be—I kindly ask that she puts her responses in writing, for the benefit of all of us in the Chamber and the residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I note that I have previously put similar questions to officials. Will the Minister update the House on the current situation at Walleys Quarry, and is she content with the advice that she is being given by the Environment Agency? Does she agree that Walleys Quarry should be closed with immediate effect, as has been strongly advocated by previous Ministers in the Department?