Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I note again that the hon. Member has not condemned the actions, yet who is being penalised but the residents of Birmingham as waste piles up outside their houses? The BBC was reporting on that very action last night. It reported not only on the action being taken by Unite trade unionists, but on the residents who are being impacted. It reported on residents who could not even get down their street, blockaded in their own homes, because of piles of rubbish outside that are causing a huge nuisance: a huge impact with the smell and a huge impact on their livelihood and way of life. That is completely unacceptable.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  How bad does it need to get for the residents of Birmingham before the Government step in and take stronger action?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If you are a resident in Birmingham paying your council tax, you want action. You do not want talks after talks, discussions after discussions. Residents have been impacted for too long—a month in certain circumstances. I was in Birmingham two weekends ago, and the level of rubbish on the streets was completely unacceptable in Britain’s second-largest city, yet what is the Minister doing about it? What is the Minister doing to hold Labour-run Birmingham to account? What action are the Government going to take, other than just passing the buck down the line to Labour-run Birmingham city council to sort it out? Other local authorities are impacted, too. I note that Lichfield district council has offered its waste services to help Birmingham tackle the mountain of waste. That is highly commendable, but what is the impact on Lichfield ratepayers? Is that what they want from their council tax payments? What is the Minister doing to ensure that the other local authorities that neighbour Birmingham will be compensated for providing assistance? The net increase in undealt-with waste, as a result of Labour-run Birmingham city council, is currently running at an estimated 1,000 tonnes per week. That is enough to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool with rubbish every two weeks. How will Birmingham residents not be tempted to fly-tip in Birmingham, and further afield in places on the periphery that are likely to be impacted such as Walsall, when they have literally run out of pavement space to put their rubbish on? It is hardly their fault. They pay their council tax, yet the Labour council cannot be bothered to get around the table properly and sort the issue out. There is also the impact on local investment. Under Andy Street, Birmingham and the wider west midlands area saw a huge amount of inward private investment to the benefit of many residents, yet the level of nuisance the situation is causing—not only in Birmingham, but in the wider area—makes matters significantly worse.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Fly-tipping: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Dare I say it, but the mismanagement under the Labour administration in Birmingham is the absolute result of what residents are now being faced with—an increase in council tax across Birmingham and a significantly negative impact on the current level of service, with their rubbish not being collected. I fear that the worst is yet to come for the people of Birmingham. We have already had reports of rat superhighways under streets—tens of millions of rats scurrying between rubbish piles and commuting through sewers. But what happens when the rubbish is finally removed, when there are no rubbish bags on the streets and the food in the rubbish has been removed? We will see starved rats running around the sewers looking elsewhere to find food. I fear for the residents whose homes may be impacted, and the additional cost that will be put on Birmingham city council to deal with vermin on the streets, not just clearing the waste. The terrible lesson from this saga is obvious: Labour’s mismanagement of Birmingham has left residents in the lurch, with literally a mountain of rubbish on their doorsteps, just one year after the budget-busting council tax rises—nearly 20% since 2023. From council tax to local services, the facts show that Conservative councils deliver more for less. In Labour-run Birmingham, they do not appear to be delivering anything. I want to come on to the points that have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to do with the initiatives that Conservative-led Walsall council are bringing out, such as the environmental crime scene project, which seems a great idea—treating every fly-tipping scene as a crime scene and taking a robust approach. We have seen reports drop from 40 reports a day to five. That is 70% of fly-tipping removed. A Conservative council taking a robust approach gets the problem solved—delivering a better result for the taxpayer. That is the result of best practice. Under the previous Conservative Government, we delivered £2.2 million to councils struggling to tackle fly-tipping, helping them get ahead of the problem. We have seen an increase in spot fines, a fly-tipping grant scheme and a better, more collaborative approach. I fear for rural councils and our farmers, who are most impacted and on the periphery of those urban environments—as has been picked up in this debate. So why on earth did the Government remove the over £100 million rural service delivery grant, which was a grant specifically aimed at helping those rural councils deliver services? Undoubtedly, those services are much costlier and harder to deliver in a rural environment. So far, this Labour Administration have only committed to revising statutory guidelines in the Crime and Policing Bill. It shows a startling lack of awareness that when waste in Birmingham is piling up at a rate of one bin bag every 4.5 seconds, the best that this Government can offer are some revised guidelines and advocating further talking shops in Birmingham. I ask the Minister, what on earth is he doing? What on earth is this Labour Government doing to get to grips with the problems in Birmingham? While there is nothing wrong with sharing and enforcing best practice, it is not the fly-tipping revolution we need. It is simple: as we have seen in Labour-run Bradford council and now in Labour-run Birmingham, “Vote Labour and you get trash.”

• 8 Apr 2025 · Tackling Child Sexual Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say that I am completely infuriated by today’s statement. Here we are, on the very last sitting day before the Easter recess, and the Government have all but admitted that no real progress whatsoever has been made on their promise to launch five local rape gang inquiries before Easter. It gets worse: for more than five years, leaders at the very top of Bradford council in my constituency have denied, refused and covered up, every single time I and victims, survivors and their families have called for a full rape gang inquiry across Keighley and the wider Bradford district. Yet the Minister and this Government refuse to face the facts. Bradford’s leadership simply will not act by itself, so why are this Government letting the very councils that failed victims decide whether they want to be investigated? When will this Government step up, use their statutory powers and give the victims and survivors in areas such as Keighley and the wider Bradford district the full inquiry that they have wanted for almost two decades?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  I receive countless emails and letters from local people across the constituency about the shocking state of our roads. People are rightly frustrated about potholes, and about the little and long waits for repairs forced on them by Bradford council. This is perhaps one of the most important issues that all of us, as MPs, get correspondence about. Why? Because it impacts us each and every day, whether we are commuting to work or simply getting out and about in the car to go and do things. We all care about the state of our roads right outside our door. I want to take you through my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, referencing a few roads and highlighting the level of concern that constituents rightly raise with me. Take Elliott Street, which runs through the centre of in Silsden in my constituency. I was first contacted by residents on this major road years ago, and the situation was poor then. Over the last few years, it has only got worse, to the extent that people on social media described the state in which Labour-run Bradford council had left the road as a mere joke. Despite having consistently raised the matter with Bradford council, it took years for the council to finally get on with it. I am pleased that in just the last two weeks, the resurfacing works have now finished. The works are welcome—of course they are—but residents on Elliott Street and across the wider Silsden area should not have had to wait years for such a busy and important road to be repaired. Elliott Street is just one example. There are similar stories in Keighley, on Westburn Avenue, on Oakworth Road, on Halifax Road and on North Street—the list goes on. In Ilkley, we have a difficult junction at the top of the Cowpasture Road, north of Ilkley grammar school. Local Conservative councillors David Nunns and Andrew Loy have consistently lobbied Bradford Council to look at this dangerous junction. In the Worth valley, the sides of Hill House Edge Lane are crumbling, with cars getting stuck in the ditches as they pass one another. Again, local Conservative councillors Rebecca Poulson, Chris Herd and Russell Brown have consistently lobbied Labour-run Bradford council to sort the issue out, but no repairs have been undertaken.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that this causes inconvenience not only to the many commuters who use the A1, who want better connectivity north of the border, but to the landowners who have been moved around in the negotiations for years? This Labour Government’s decision to scrap the funding allocated for the A1 upgrade not only affects local businesses in Alnwick and the safety of the crossings in Felton and Ellingham, and the like, but affects people who own land either side of the A1 who have been put through huge uncertainty.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement on better transparency in how local government is spending money on potholes, but the challenge I have in the Bradford district is that, according to the answer to a freedom of information request, only 4% of highway spending over six years was spent in the Keighley and Ilkley constituency. The vast majority of the highway spending has been spent within Bradford city centre. How will the Government ensure that, across a local authority area, there is fairness in the amount of highway spending allocated across the whole district, rather than just on city centre projects?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that the hon. Member brought that up. Just in 2021, Bradford council, through its statutory responsibility to provide feedback to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government —it was the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities at the time—reported that it was in sound financial health. That was the year in which it applied to be city of culture. This year, residents across the Keighley and Ilkley constituency face a 10% increase in council tax, despite our roads being in such a poor state. That leads me on to a freedom of information request that I put to Bradford council. I was astounded by what I found out. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today that there will be more transparency in our local councils, because through that FOI request I learned that between 2017 and 2022, just 4% of Bradford council’s identified spending for highways was allocated to my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. For reference, Labour-run Bradford council was able to find and allocate £13.1 million for the Bradford South constituency, £19.2 million for the Bradford East constituency and £17.4 million for the Bradford West constituency, but only £4.1 million was spent across the Keighley and Ilkley constituency on highways over that six-year period. This is despite many concerns quite rightly being raised from residents across Keighley, Ilkley, the Worth valley, Silsden and Steeton. Wherever they may be in my constituency, they are rightly complaining about repairs to roads not being undertaken, pavement problems not being addressed and potholes not being looked at, so it is no wonder that my constituents are losing trust in our local Labour-run authority. The list goes on, and it includes concerns that are being raised by local Conservative councillors trying to hold Labour-run Bradford council to account, but unfortunately we seem not to be getting anywhere and we are not being listened to. When Bradford council does spend money on roads in my patch, the question is: does it actually spend that money on what people want it to be spent on? Of course it does not. When Bradford council spent more than £100,000—with an £87,500 contribution from Ilkley town council—on roads in Ilkley, we got speed humps and a blanket 20 mph zone, rather than getting our potholes addressed. In a parish council referendum on this very issue, 98.3% of people in Ilkley opposed the roll-out of way over 100 speed bumps in the centre of Ilkley. If you asked anyone in Ilkley what they would like from a good proportion of the 200 grand being spent on our roads, they would say, quite rightly: “Fix the potholes and sort out that junction at the top of Cowpasture Road.” But Bradford council would not listen. It went against a public referendum on this issue and instead spent the money on more speed humps, contrary to what the people in Ilkley rightly advocated through a vote on the issue at the ballot box. So, what are the Government going to do to ensure that my constituents get a fair deal on their roads from Bradford council? The Secretary of State promising greater investment into roads is absolutely vital and to be welcomed, but it is no good making these promises when the funds do not get past the dictatorial local council, which does not allocate the money to my constituency. In Keighley and Ilkley we deserve our fair share, but Bradford council is unfortunately more than happy to allocate our council tax and any central Government funds that come into the Bradford district not to the roads in Keighley and Ilkley, Silsden or the Worth valley, but instead to Bradford city itself. It is about time we had our fair share of highway spending across our constituency of Keighley and Ilkley.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just north of the border that these cuts are being made? South of the border, we have seen this new Labour Government cut the local service delivery grant by over £100 million. The grant is specifically allocated to assist rural councils in providing much-needed services, such as pothole maintenance, where the cost of delivery is much higher in rural areas. Does he agree that was the wrong decision for this Labour Government to make?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Local Development: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  Across my constituency, local people are hugely frustrated at Labour-run Bradford council inundating our communities with hundreds of new houses, while not investing in local services and roads. Despite protests and valid concerns, the council has steamrollered through developments at every stage. Yet when vast numbers of local people in Silsden supported the development of a new farm shop on the periphery of the town—exactly the kind of new service that would promote local growth and deliver the new sustainable housing we need—Bradford council blocked the proposal. How will the Minister ensure that local councils listen to local people and are not dictating development plans to them?

• 7 Apr 2025 · Local Development: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  8. Whether she plans to include more local people in discussions on development in their area.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate, in which we have heard incredibly powerful views from all hon. Members who have participated. Incineration is a strongly felt issue for many people across the country. I have my own strong feelings on the issue. I am familiar with it from my constituency, where we have staunchly campaigned against the Aire valley incinerator, which is due to be constructed, at some stage, on the outskirts of Keighley. It is not yet built, but it was given the green light by Labour-run Bradford council and the Environment Agency some years ago. I put on record the staunch work that the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign group has done for a number of years, working with me and many residents to campaign strongly against the Aire valley incinerator. My view remains as it has been since I was first elected to this place: the Aire valley incinerator should not be built. Similar opinions have been expressed by many hon. Members in this House—although, dare I say, not by the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be staunchly warm to incineration. All other hon. Members have staunchly expressed their views against. We heard from the hon. Member for Derby South about the Sinfin incinerator, which he has campaigned long and hard to oppose; from the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who is staunchly against the Corby incinerator; from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), campaigning against the Swadlincote incinerator; from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns); from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), no longer in his place, who is campaigning against the Edmonton incinerator; from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), who is against the Portland incinerator; and from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who raised his concerns about incineration. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke against two incinerators in his constituency, Warboys and Envar. He rightly raised concerns that despite him making valid challenges on behalf of his constituents, not only to the Secretary of State but to Ministers, they have not even had the decency to come back to him. I can only urge the Minister to take those concerns to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and hope that a response is received to the planning challenges that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) shared his experiences of a live incinerator in his constituency, giving us the warnings that we all need as we continue our campaigns against incineration in our own constituencies. He was right to highlight the challenges with not only the feedstocks going into that incinerator but the wider problems associated with it. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) has campaigned consistently against the Wisbech incinerator. The applicants seemingly decided to get around their application being determined by the local planning authority by making the scheme so big that it would cover six different counties, meaning that a national strategic decision had to be made. He rightly raised concerns around capacity, which as he said already exists in the system. He also raised the huge challenge that, by the time a planning application has been approved for incinerators, technology and the feedstocks that are being incinerated have changed dramatically. This happens even in the case of the incinerator in the Aire valley in my constituency, which dates back to 2015. He is therefore quite right to advocate for the Government to look at that. Members have consistently raised wider concerns to do with planning applications that are in the pipeline—at the local planning authority or the environment agency—relating to noise, smell and odour, insect infestations and topography. In my constituency, Bradford council, a Labour-controlled local authority, approved a planning application for an incinerator to be built at the bottom of a valley that, when temperature and cloud inversions and the significantly low stack height are taken into account, would cause emissions to get trapped in the cloud and have a detrimental effect on those residents who are higher up on either side of the valley. That is a challenge that we have consistently put to not only Bradford council but the environment agency. Other concerns to do with consultation processes that have been raised include the lifespan of an incinerator, the decommissioning process once that comes to an end, challenges with the number of job that will be created as a result of a positive incinerator being approved, and the failure of an incinerator to meet the initial expectations around electrical efficiency that are provided when an application is considered. We have also heard challenges around section 106 moneys coming, challenges associated if schools, nurseries and residents are in close proximity to an incinerator, and challenges relating to highways. Prior to the general election, the last Government rightly paused new incineration licences due to concerns around there already being capacity in the system and oversupply being prevalent. That moratorium expired during the election, and has not been renewed by the new Labour Administration. The end goal of our waste system must be to reduce the volume of residual waste as much as possible. That means absolute focus on reducing, reusing and recycling, but we must also be realistic in recognising that there will always be waste that must be disposed of. While the Conservatives pledged to stop all new incinerators for good and double down on efforts to reduce waste in the first place, Labour has instead attempted to manage the issue of incineration. In new regulations announced late last year, the Government said that incineration plants would be granted licences only if they can demonstrate that they are reducing landfill. That is a rather low threshold, as almost any waste heading to an incinerator would otherwise be landfilled. More importantly, that criterion misses the key point that methane emissions from landfill will simply be replaced with carbon emissions from waste incineration. In fact, greenhouse gases from incinerators are more intense, as landfill releases its carbon much more slowly than incineration plants. I fear that this landfill criterion is merely an attempt by this Government to give a veneer of environmentally friendly credibility to a policy that actually represents a failure to tackle the broader waste challenge. Another requirement is that new plants be carbon capture-ready, but one wonders how the Government will assess that criterion when carbon capture technology is still in its infancy and remains unproven. This is not the basis for sensible, long-term policy. Incineration is the dirtiest form of electricity generation in the country, and has a huge impact on local air pollution, as has been raised by many Members across this House when challenging decisions that have been made by their local planning authority or the environmental operational licence that is then awarded by the Environment Agency. They are rightly advocating, on behalf of their constituents, that such decisions should not go ahead as planned. At the same time, Labour has claimed that it has introduced tough new rules to clean up incineration and is considering introducing a carbon tax on councils that incinerate. That reveals a gaping hole in the Government’s thinking. I ask the Minister: will the Government’s changes to licensing be effective in reducing pollution? If so, why tax cash-strapped councils—or does the tax reveal that the Government expect their licensing policy to fail and are hoping to deter the use of incinerators as a result? Incinerators are dirty and as a result should be taxed as we tax landfill, but clearly a long-term strategy should be adopted to phase out incineration. Why will the Government not commit to that vision? In its announcement on the new rules, DEFRA explained that the need for new incinerators was small, as waste capacity is now almost sufficient for UK demand. In that case, why will the Government not reassure the thousands of campaigners across the country—many Members on both sides of the House have referenced many who have worked alongside them and I also mentioned the Aire Valley Against Incineration group in my own constituency —and commit to building no more incinerators? Surely we would hope that the existing incineration plants reach the end of their lives, and that we are reducing residual waste sufficiently that we do not require any replacements. The Government must come forward with a comprehensive vision for the future of UK waste; otherwise, we will be flying blind. I urge the Government to instigate an immediate stop to all new incinerators being built, regardless of whether they have been approved, and whether that approval was through planning permission or an operational licence awarded by the Environment Agency.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  That brings me nicely to my next point, which is the strength of the regulator. Ofwat has the powers to link dividends to environmental performance —a measure that was awarded to Ofwat—and to ban bosses’ bonuses for executives, but those powers are there should Ofwat wish to use them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that Ofwat is using the powers that it has been awarded, and to ensure that it is being robust in its actions as the regulator? Many hon. Members have rightly raised concerns that Ofwat has not been robust enough. Much has been said in this debate about nationalising our water industry and particularly Thames Water, but it is false to assume that a struggling private company will cease to struggle purely because it changes hands. Indebtedness does not go away because a company is nationalised—not without a taxpayer-funded bailout, which would mean redress for the failures of Thames Water executives coming out of the pockets of working people. I mention again the example of Scottish Water, north of the border. There have been myriad mistakes at Thames Water, but it is the responsibility of the independent regulator, Ofwat, to right those wrongs and use the powers that have been awarded to it.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a figure that has been referenced since nationalisation initially took place, and has been well recognised as the amount of money that has been invested into our water companies by the private sector, for the benefit not only of Thames Water but of all the water companies across England. What is the Minister doing to ensure that Ofwat is utilising the powers awarded to it, and does she have confidence in Ofwat being able to exercise its function? If not, what is the Minister doing about it? Furthermore, the Government need to take action to further protect consumers from the Thames Water fallout. The court settlement that Thames Water secured in February is designed to give everyone involved time to come to a sustainable plan, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us today that her efforts are firmly going towards ensuring that the plan protects consumers. Finally, I would like to talk about the broader reforms and support that we can offer our water industry. As I and others have rightly said throughout this debate, our water industry is crying out for further investment. We need to think further about how to utilise the opportunities for the water sector across the country. To that end, what consideration is the Minister giving to providing more opportunities for individuals and organisations outside of major water companies to influence improving the water sector, and has she considered the untapped potential to increase water supply and capacity to the thousands of people who are utilising water, and the hundreds of landowners out there who, with the right financial and planning incentives, may choose to further invest in the water industry? That may be an avenue that the Minister may wish to explore. I again thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for securing this important debate.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, that is the point: for any Government, regardless of political colour or make-up, to deal with the challenge, they need to understand the true extent of what they are dealing with. It is frustrating that north of the border only 4% of storm overflows are being monitored. In reference to what is happening with Scottish Water, and to what the devolved Administration north of the border are doing in the Scottish Parliament to tackle challenges of pollution, how can any proper strategy be put in place with no reference point? That is why it is important to get to the 100% level of monitoring that we now have in England, which resulted in the last Administration being able to roll out the plan for water, which was about stronger regulation, tougher enforcement and more investment. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the Thames tideway, which has 25 km of underground capacity that has now been extended from Acton to Abbey Mills. A £5 billion investment has been put into the project, which is now fully operational, having opened in February; I was lucky enough to visit and to go down into it before it was opened. The great thing about the project is that it is now draining about 34 of the most polluting combined sewer overflows in the Thames area, which will help to improve the quality of the water in the Thames. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam rightly raised the concerns about increasing water bills, the lack of trust in Thames Water and the poor level of service that his constituents are experiencing. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) picked up on the same issues and referred to the meeting that I had with her and with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in the short period for which I was lucky enough to be a Minister in the Department, about the challenges with the Teddington project. I urge the Minister to address those concerns, because challenges arise when there is no proper environmental impact assessment. Concern about the project is rightly being raised—it was certainly a concern that I had—so I urge the Minister to continue to put pressure on Thames Water. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) rightly raised the concerns of constituents on Clarence Avenue and in Brixton, relating to water shortages resulting from Thames Water not carrying out its duty to the level of quality that her constituents expect. She also raised concerns about the bill increases of approximately 30% or 31% for some of her constituents. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the statutory duties that a water company is bound to meet and referred to the poor satisfaction levels that Thames Water is delivering. The hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) rightly raised the challenges that his constituents are experiencing with flooding, and Thames Water’s refusal to take responsibility. Finally, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned challenges relating to Thames Water’s bill increases and the poor service that his constituents experience. Thames Water is probably the most distressing example of our water system going wrong. Bills are rising by about 33% this year, but unfortunately the Government have failed to take serious action and consumers are paying for it. That comes in addition to the pressures of the cost of living, council tax rises and so on. Rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water shareholders have simply wrung the business dry of capital, failed to invest to expand its supply, and failed to invest to clean up sewage spills. Thames Water’s exceptionally poor level of service deliverability has already been mentioned. The last Administration took steps to address the challenges that constituents and residents face not only in the Thames Water area, but across England. We blocked bosses’ bonuses for water company executives, we ensured that dividends had to be linked specifically to environmental performance and we introduced unlimited civil fines by removing the £250,000 cap. More power was awarded to Ofwat so that it could impose levies on water companies in the circumstances. In August last year, Thames Water was fined £104 million for its failure to avoid sewage overflows. In other instances Thames Water was put under a cash lock-up, which prevents any dividends from being paid out without Ofwat’s approval.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this really important debate. It was good to listen to all the contributions. As we all know, water is vital and we use it every single day, so it is deeply concerning that we have such great challenges in our water industry, particularly those that have been highlighted with Thames Water. Under the last Government, we uncovered the true extent of the issues with our water system by increasing the monitoring of storm overflows, which no political party or Administration had previously attempted. Back in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored, but when we left office, 100% were monitored. That gave the Government and our regulators a proper and true understanding of the way in which those storm overflows were being used by our water companies.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Thames Water: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I simply refer to the fact that since privatisation about £250 billion of private investment has been put into our water companies, not only to improve infrastructure but to help with service delivery—£250 billion that would otherwise have had to come from the taxpayer. My second point is that the system should work if the regulator is being robust enough. The point that I come back to is that there is a clear argument that the regulator, Ofwat, has not been sufficiently utilising the powers awarded to it by the Government, and therefore it is right that the Government hold it to account to make it as robust as possible. North of the border in Scotland, with Scottish Water, only 4% of storm overflows are even being monitored, and the service and delivery that Scottish residents are facing is in some cases far worse than what we are experiencing from Thames Water. Simply having a nationalisation strategy does not demonstrate better roll-out and service delivery for customers. There have been myriad mistakes at Thames Water, but it is the responsibility of the independent regulator, Ofwat, to right those wrongs.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  That is why this debate is so important. I come back to the point that a financial assessment is crucial, because farming is like no other industry. An arable farmer relies on the cash coming into the business when they sell their crop. They are able to sell that crop only once it has been harvested. They may sell it on futures, or retain the grain in store and sell it at the appropriate time throughout the year, but the reality is that they do not have guaranteed cash coming into their business regularly, as people do in many other sectors. It is the same for a hill farmer selling lambs for meat and for a lowland arable farmer. These businesses are highly geared financially, given the level of debt they carry, and an irregular level of income is coming into their business. The Government have taken away or dramatically reduced the one certainty of financial gain that these businesses would have through the delinked payments or, indeed, the SFI. The impact on mental health has also quite rightly been raised. The Government are actively making choices that negatively impact farmers’ cash flow. They have made decisions on the family farm tax. Their decisions are affecting tenant farmers’ ability to pay their rent and farmers’ ability to service their debts. The Government’s collective decisions are negatively impacting on the health and wellbeing of our many farming businesses. I therefore urge the Government and the farming Minister to get out and speak to as many farming businesses as possible. The Minister needs to pick that issue up and engage with it. We have asked time and again from the Dispatch Box about what data the Government are collecting on the negative impact on the health and wellbeing of our farming community. Those who farm work in an incredibly lonely environment. People who are lambing sheep, as many are right now in the moorlands of the Worth valley in my constituency, are working on their own, and it is incredibly lonely. They then have all the financial pressures that the Government are actively choosing to put on them. That is not a healthy state of affairs for farmers, which is why I urge the Government to reconsider this legislation. The explanatory memorandum does not refer to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Has the Minister —he is the farming Minister—considered the dramatic impact of the delinked payments and the choice to remove the sustainable farming incentive? English farmers are now very much at a disadvantage compared with farmers in Scotland and Wales, because the amount of public money they will be able to receive is significantly different. Have the implications for that Act been considered?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Twigg. Can utilisation of the rules of this House bring a closure motion before the Committee. If we do not have before us the information needed to consider properly this legislation’s impact on many farming businesses, is a mechanism available to me to move a closure motion, so that we can reconsider the legislation when an impact assessment has been undertaken?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a very serious point, and I will develop my thinking on that later in my speech. If the Secretary of State has visited very few farms—just a handful—since the general election, how could he and the Government have come to the conclusion that there is no need for a financial impact assessment? That is why we want to challenge the Government on the fact that there has been no impact assessment at all of the collective negative impact of the Budget on our many family farming businesses. I highlight all these points because of the collective impact on our farming businesses of this piece of legislation, as well as the reduction in the SFI, the dramatic cuts in the capital grants and all the other budgetary challenges I have mentioned. As I indicated, I have had so many conversations at kitchen tables around the country—believe me, I have sat at many of them—in which the concerns I have outlined have been specifically raised. The point put to me consistently is that the Government keep coming out with warm words—“We will support our farmers”—but do nothing at all to support our many family farming businesses.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Twigg. I seek your guidance. The Minister has just said that no economic impact assessment has been carried out on the draft legislation that we are considering. He noted that previous impact assessments were done under the Agriculture Act passed in a previous Parliament, but that was a significant time ago. I therefore seek your guidance on how we can robustly scrutinise this piece of legislation when the very crux of it is to have a negative impact on our many farming businesses. Without an economic impact assessment undertaken with due regard to that, how can we continue this debate without the information before us?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government’s narrative is that food security is national security, but those are just warm words because they are not followed up at all by any policy setting an attractive agenda for our farming community. Indeed, every Government announcement seems to negatively impact it.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is why an impact assessment is so important if we are to consider this piece of legislation. Not only are farmers facing the collective economic impact of a dramatic reduction in delinked payments, but they are now faced with being unable to receive sustainable farming incentive payments, the increase in employer’s national insurance and the rise in the minimum wage going up. All of those increase the overheads of farming businesses. The delinked payments whereby farmers were looking to progress their plans to increase the productivity of their holding or indeed their own investments over the seven-year transition period, were dramatically reduced through a sneaked-out announcement in November last year.