Robbie Moore MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, the reason why our moorlands are in the state they are in today is the collective management that is taking place, whether by mechanical means or through the moorland management burning plans that exist. If we were to end the burning of heather altogether, we would allow the woody stock to generate that has led to the very fires that were rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). Right now, gamekeepers are the people on the ground trying to cope with those fires and help our fire services out. No burning would mean a build-up of vegetation and woody stock, which is itself a negative influence on the sustainability of heather for bird species of all kinds, but what is perhaps worse is that eventually, in the natural cycle, such overgrown heather is much more prone to catching fire. When it does, it will lead to huge and far more damaging wildfires, which are costly to communities and hugely damaging to the environment. I have seen this for myself in my West Yorkshire constituency on Ilkley moor—another moor that is not managed, exactly the same as Fylingdales moor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. A series of smaller and cooler man-made fires, agreed and signed off via an approved moorland management burning plan, is vital for enhancing the ecological status of moorland, helps to improve the complex and desirable mosaic of the moorland, and significantly reduces the risk of dangerous unplanned fires. Once we understand that burning is the management of a natural process, and not destruction for destruction’s sake, it is far harder to justify banning it.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the more than 104,000 signatories to the petition. Let me be absolutely clear with the many petitioners and other interested parties watching this debate: it is not my view that grouse shooting should be banned. I hope that over the course of my remarks it will become clear why that is my view and, indeed, the view of the Conservative party. We must begin by recognising that grouse moorland is not a natural habitat. Just as the charm of the British countryside is managed by farmers, grouse moorland is managed by gamekeepers, farmers, estates and shooting syndicates that use it. If grouse shooting were banned, the moorland would not be as it is today. I worked as a rural practice surveyor before entering this place, and I advised and was involved in many moorland restoration projects—as well as spending many a Saturday when I was a young lad beating on grouse moors to earn a small wage—so I know the economic, social, environmental and ecological importance of grouse shooting to our uplands. Banning grouse shooting would have significant ramifications. Across the UK, 1.8 million hectares of moorland are specifically used for grouse shooting, and they account for about 75% of the world’s supply of this remarkable habitat. Moorland is, in effect, unique to these islands, and we should be proud and protective of it. Red grouse, the species most commonly used in shooting, is also unique to these islands. It is worth pausing to note that grouse shooting does not involve the specific rearing and release of birds. Grouse shoots use wild populations of birds that are carefully managed to create the numbers needed to prevent endangerment. The fact that grouse management straddles the line between true animal husbandry and wild hunting is precisely why the industry has such ecological and environmental benefits. The activity drives economic incentives to invest in the upkeep of grouse populations, manage their habitat for other species and provide significant environmental benefits. Just as the careful management of heather benefits grouse, so it benefits other species, such as lapwing, curlew, golden plover and the rare merlin, as many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out. Such protected species rely on good, healthy heather for food and shelter, and without proper management, their numbers would decline. Much of our moorland is also peatland, and grouse moor management schemes have restored approximately 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the past 20 years. Colleagues may know that I have been a big champion of peatland to store and sequester carbon, so efforts to restore it are very welcome. Peat in the UK stores 26 times as much carbon as UK forests, yet it regenerates naturally by only 1 mm a year in depth, making its protection and proper management vital to reducing carbon emissions. Through its management of grouse moors, grouse shooting can only contribute towards the success of that, including its economic benefits. It is right that I pause here to discuss the burning of heather, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and other Members. The concerns of proponents of a ban on burning may be understandable, but they fail to consider the full picture and, dare I say it, are sometimes completely ill-informed. Their surface-level analysis ignores the fact that moorland is a managed landscape and must continue to be managed if we want it to remain in the enhanced habitat state that we see it in today.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I was just going to come to that. Natural England is engaged in that consultation right now. It is not just me who is concerned about the consultation process and the direction that Natural England is going in; the concern is shared by my hon. Friend and by Members across the House who have moorland in their constituencies where it is necessary to be able to burn in order to control the woody stock of heather, so that we can create a mosaic that benefits not just the peatland that sits below it but the many species that want to eat the new shoots of heather that come through. That would benefit not only red grouse but the many other bird species I have already spoken about. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Minister to look carefully at the steps that Natural England is taking, because its current direction is not sustainable for our rural economies. The benefits of grouse shooting are not limited to environmental improvements. Grouse shooting and the management of our moorland provide an invaluable and highly successful land use for our upland areas that, crucially, relies on not just public money, but private investment. Directly within the industry, 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs are supported, contributing nearly £47 million to the UK economy. Those numbers may seem small compared with other industries, but the importance of grouse shooting is where that economic stimulus is felt. Upland rural communities are some of the most remote and deprived in the country. It is a huge challenge to promote inward investment or deliver efficient and effective public services in those communities. Alongside activities like farming, grouse shooting provides a vital economic pillar to keep our communities alive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), like other Members, picked up on that very point. He rightly identified the complex social fabric in the hard-working communities up in Wensleydale, Hawes and beyond. Upland communities are some of the most remote. Banning grouse shooting would cause community centres such as pubs and hotels—like the Star near Thirsk, which I am familiar with—to shut, and those communities would be unable to rely on the positive benefits for employment, for families and for the viability of public services. The benefits of grouse shooting extend well into our urban areas, as rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who talked about Holland & Holland. That demonstrates the wider economic impacts of grouse shooting. We know how important access to green spaces is, and the public obviously agree: 3 million people visit the North York moors, the Yorkshire dales and the Peak district annually. Why? Because they love the landscape. The wider public health benefits of how grouse moors are managed are there for us all to see. Research shows that the perennial leaf coverage of heather helps to reduce air pollution, but that coverage is sustained only by the moorland being predominantly funded and managed for the purpose of grouse shooting. Managed grouse moorland also provides a defence against tick-borne diseases. The management of ticks is in the interest of our groundkeepers and of our farmers, as it protects their livestock, but another benefit is fewer ticks to spread human-borne diseases, some of which can be fatal. If we take away the economic incentives to carry out that work by banning grouse shooting, we lose those additional benefits. I have covered many of the positive consequences of grouse shooting, but I would like to talk about the petition itself. Campaigners for banning grouse shooting have raised flooding as a concern, yet many of the organisations I have spoken to that advocate for shooting to continue say that the exact opposite is true. In the words that I have heard continuously, the wetter, the better. Indeed, many groundkeepers have spent the better part of the last few decades filling in and removing drains put in in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically to improve the outcomes for grouse shooting and to the benefit of flood mitigation downstream. I have seen that for myself on Keighley moor in my constituency. Without grouse shooting, those ditches and drains would still be in place today. Another concern that has been raised, not just in this debate but in others that have preceded it, is predator control. We must strike a balance here. Many predatory species, such as foxes, are not endangered, yet many of their prey animals are. While grouse themselves are not endangered, other bird species that benefit from this predator control are. Where the control of predators has been relaxed, numbers of other bird species, such as the lapwing, golden plover and rare merlin, have dropped significantly. We must make a choice about what we wish to prioritise: an unendangered predator species or the endangered prey themselves. Taking no action is not a neutral action. It is heartening to hear that, thanks in part to moorland managed for grouse shooting, hen harrier numbers reached record levels in 2023, demonstrating the positive effect that moorland management can have on our bird of prey species. We should also be absolutely clear that the harming of birds of prey is a crime, and I have yet to meet a grouse shooting organisation that believes that should change. Once again, the rising populations of our birds of prey demonstrate that grouse shooting works for our environment and not against it. I am pleased that the Government’s written response to the petition was that there are no plans at present to ban grouse shooting, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that this remains the case and, further, that no Labour Government will ban grouse shooting. I would also be grateful if the Minister could say what he will do with his ministerial colleagues to hold Natural England to account, to make sure that it does not run away with the narrative of wanting to reduce the definition of deep peat from 40 cm to 30 cm, as that would have catastrophic consequences for how moorland is managed. Grouse moorland management is a real success story of balancing economic, social and environmental activities. Those who wish to ban it because they feel that an unmanaged, natural approach would be better should be careful what they wish for. Without the financial incentive of the shoot, none of these environmental benefits for our moorland, our bird species or our climate would happen. I am certain that they would not happen without an agenda driven by private investment. I thank all those in the sector who work enormously hard around the clock to enhance our moorland—our gamekeepers, our groundskeepers, our farmers, our rural estates, our land managers and our stakeholders such as the Moorland Association, BASC, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Countryside Alliance. I thank them for their continued work. We all know that almost every acre of the UK is managed in one way or another, and has been for hundreds if not thousands of years. There is no Siberian tundra in the UK, no Australian outback, no Amazon rainforest or American wild west. We should not pretend that the land we love is the product of a random choice of nature, but instead we should recognise that it is a collective accomplishment of generation after generation of our ancestors and their stewardship of the land. Britain’s natural landscape is, ironically, a product of unnatural human management. Grouse moorland management might only be a part of that wider story, but it is an illustrative and successful one that I hope will continue long into the future.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this month Family Business UK confirmed what was obvious to many on this side of the House—but not, apparently, to Labour Members—that the Government’s changes to business property relief will cause more than 200,000 job losses and cost the economy nearly £15 billion. That includes 250 jobs in my constituency and more than £60 million lost to the local economy in West Yorkshire. Can we have an urgent debate on the catastrophic consequences that the Government’s changes to inheritance tax, through business property relief and agricultural property relief, will have on many of our family businesses from April 2026?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  After a long campaign, we have finally been successful in securing a banking hub in Ilkley, despite having to wait for the last bank to announce its closure. However, securing access to cash is not just about securing a banking hub; it is about securing an ATM that people can access when the hub is closed. We found that, unfortunately, Cash Access UK and Link, which decide applications for hubs, have determined that we should not need an ATM on the outside of the building. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of such an out-of-hours facility?

• 25 Jun 2025 · Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for her interaction with me in my endeavours to get a banking hub in Ilkley. Could I ask the Minister about the assessment criteria that Link and Cash Access UK are using? Is it the right course to get to the point where we are relying on the final bank to close before we start looking at applications? Secondly, does the Minister not feel it is right that when we do manage to secure a banking hub, an ATM could be located on the outside of that banking hub so that people could access cash out of hours?

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that the Labour Government do not understand how our small businesses operate, and are not on their side? We see the impact of not only VAT registration, but employer’s national insurance, minimum wage and business rates increases, among other things. Does he agree that this Government do not understand how small businesses want to grow, operate and thrive?

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing today’s important debate because, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) have illustrated, many of our small independent businesses have contacted us as their representatives about the challenge around the VAT threshold time and again. The VAT threshold builds on the collective impact of all the budgetary changes that have been having a hugely detrimental—indeed, catastrophic—impact on our many family businesses. The increases in employers’ national insurance, minimum wage, business rates—crikey, the list goes on. That is before we start looking at other legislation that is coming down the line, such as the Employment Rights Bill, which is creating more uncertainty for employees, dare I say, because employers quite rightly will not want to take the risk of growing and expanding, with further regulation and legislation coming down the line. Small businesses are the lifeblood of any prosperous community, and my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley is no exception. Keighley is home to many fantastic small high street businesses, as well as a number of nationally and internationally acclaimed manufacturers. Likewise, Ilkley boasts a fabulously good high street, which helped the town to be officially named the best place to live in the whole north of England, as rated by The Sunday Times . I am sorry to say that our many small businesses are under immensely increasing regulatory and tax pressures as we go forward. Whether because of the rise in budgetary pressures introduced by the Budget last year or VAT, the subject of this debate, those businesses are struggling right now to make ends meet, and the challenge continues. The mighty British fish and chip shop is one sector that is particularly struggling, with rising input prices and uncertainty over supply chains. I am honoured to represent many fish and chip shops across Keighley and Ilkley, and was lucky enough meet a great constituent of mine, Dwaine Smith, and go along to Old Time Fisheries at the top of Devonshire Street in Keighley to sample the fine offering. He was keen to get across to me the absolute pressure that the fish and chip industry is facing as a result of the increased cost of fish and chips coming into the sector, as well as the increased pressures around employer’s national insurance, the minimum wage and the challenge around VAT thresholds. On a number of occasions I have spoken to the operator of Kirkgate Fisheries, in Silsden in my constituency, and he has raised the issue of VAT with me as the No. 1 challenge that he is facing. Bearing out what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire said, as an organisation it has actively looked at reducing the number of hours that it is open because of the challenges associated with VAT registration and the threshold that has been put in place. We cannot be in a scenario where businesses are coming to us time and again, whether in the fish and chip industry or other sectors such as the wedding industry, as was referenced by my hon. Friend—it applies to every business—because they are being effectively constrained from growing and expanding because of the VAT registration challenges and the burden of the VAT threshold. It is sad to see popular, successful businesses in our communities having to commit acts of self-harm, not because they want to but because they have no other option available—they are forced to because of the increased taxes being put on their shoulders. That brings me to the nub of the issue: this debate is about not just the level of the VAT threshold—although I am pleased to say that it rose steadily under the last Conservative Administration—but the hugely negative impact that the cost of VAT registration is having on the growth of many businesses in my constituency. It is not viable to sit just under the threshold, as has often been communicated to me by many of my constituents, and without further investment to get above it, businesses stagnate. That is the problem that we are actively seeing. I hope that the Minister will reference this cliff edge, which many of our hard-working businesses are facing, and that he will address how the Government plan to see the transition for businesses between VAT regimes. I want to see businesses across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley thrive; I want to see families set up businesses that they have control of, that are pillars of the community and drive the local economy. Without doubt, they are the fabric of our communities. To do that, we must create a tax system that encourages expansion and growth. At the moment, the VAT threshold is a great filter to success. It is stagnating many of our businesses and constraining them from being able to grow at the speed they wish. At worst, many of our businesses are reducing their hours of operation and the amount of products that they are selling, because of the VAT threshold and the cost of VAT registration. This simply cannot continue. It is within the power of the Government to make that change, and I hope that the Minister is listening. Finally, I would like to understand from the Minister whether any financial impact assessment has been made by this Government, not only on VAT but on the collective impact of those additional regulatory and financial burdens that have been put on hard-working businesses in our constituencies. I go door-knocking every week, speaking to residents and large and small businesses across my constituency. On the doorstep I openly ask people, 20% or 25% of the way into this Parliament—a year into this Government—to give me one thing that they feel the Government have delivered that has had a positive impact on their business. They cannot name one thing.

• 24 Jun 2025 · VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I struggle to understand how the Minister can come out with these pre-written speeches and expect anyone to believe him. How can he say that stability has now been put back into the wider economy when many hard-working businesses, including the SMEs that many hon. Members have talked about in this debate, are struggling to deal with the consequences of employer’s national insurance contributions rising; the consequences of VAT, which we are debating today; and the consequences of the Employment Rights Bill, which are coming down the line? Yet he still stands at the Dispatch Box and comes out with the bizarre claim that the Government have installed stability with their plan for change. That is nonsense.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This is effectively going to ban the spraying of organic manures in the coming months. Is the Secretary of State categorically ruling that out?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to cover for the shadow Secretary of State, who is speaking to farmers at the 140th Lincolnshire Agricultural Show. Having visited many such shows myself, including North Sheep 2025 and Cereals 2025 just last week, may I say how disappointed I am by the Secretary of State’s lack of attendance at these crucial farming events? At a time when our farmers are going through some of the most extraordinary pressures in a generation, we have now learned that this Government have chosen to slash the farming budget. To make matters worse, Ministers have spent the past week trying to sell cuts of more than £100 million a year in real terms as a historic deal for farmers. If the Secretary of State has secured such a historic deal for his Department, where does DEFRA rank compared with others in terms of cuts in the spending review?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a shame that the Secretary of State did not do any media at the Royal Cornwall Show and pulled out of speaking events. I can tell him that DEFRA is ranked the third biggest loser of any Government Department in the spending review, and that is his failure. In reality, we are now looking at cuts to the farming budget of about 20% in real terms over the next three years, at a time when farmers need more support and certainty than ever. It gets worse: we now hear that the Government have issued further statutory guidance on farming rules for water, with more to follow, effectively aiming to ban—

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

  The fact that victims and survivors of this horrific crime literally had to become campaigners themselves to reach this outcome should make everyone in the House stop and think. When I last met the Safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), along with the leading child abuse lawyer David Greenwood, we pointed out the fundamental flaw in her Government’s grooming gangs strategy: namely, the completely ridiculous decision to give council leaders in areas such as Keighley and Bradford the option to simply say no to an inquiry. Now that we have an inquiry equipped with statutory powers, may I ask the Home Secretary what message she has for local leaders in my region who think that they can still get away with saying no, and what message she has for victims such as Fiona Goddard, who is also from my area and who will no doubt be worrying, like me, that there will still be no focus on Keighley and the wider Bradford district?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Across Keighley and Ilkley, there are many fantastic independent businesses that rely on footfall for customers to come through their doors. However, after hiking parking charges in Ilkley earlier this year, Labour-run Bradford council has now decided to strip away our free one hour on-street parking from the town centre and, quite rightly, local businesses and residents are up in arms. On top of the whopping 10% increase in council tax and increases in business rates, Bradford council is now scrapping free car parking, so does the Leader of the House feel that will be to the detriment of our many businesses and residents across the constituency?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak about new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name. Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. Indeed, much of yesterday’s debate was taken up by discussion of precisely the new CPO powers that the Bill will grant to Natural England and local authorities. The fact that under the Bill a farmer in Keighley can be told how to use his land, on pain of a CPO, as a result of a development in Kent is complete and utter madness, but that is exactly the intention of the Bill. No matter where someone owns land, they may be put at detriment by a scheme that is taking place elsewhere. That is exactly what the Government intend to do through the additional CPO powers: to give Natural England—an organisation with which I have huge frustration and which, dare I say it, is not accountable robustly to a Minister—more power to use compulsory purchase orders.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position. Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value. I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The farming community faces so much uncertainty not only as a result of the Bill, but because of all the additional pressures, whether it is the family farm tax or the increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year. That is why my new clause 127 and amendment 153 —and, indeed, Opposition new clause 42—are so important. It is frustrating that the Government are just throwing out these amendments and are not willing to consider them, because they have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community and our landowners, so that the state does not have the control that this Government are willing to give it. I urge the Government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments to the Bill.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country. The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market. That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s U-turn is an astonishing victory against the Government, whose support has dried up after less than a year in office. When the Government announced their cruel cut to the winter fuel payment, costing 64,000 Bradford district pensioners vital support, experts across the country warned that up to 4,000 lives could be at risk as people were forced to choose between heating and eating. Now that the majority of the winter fuel payment has been restored, do the Government dare to produce a figure for how many pensioners may have lost their life as a result of the Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel allowance?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. Who better to open this debate than a Lincolnshire representative from a county that I know very well and which produces 30% of our vegetables, 20% of our sugar beet and, collectively, 12% of all of the food that we find on our shelves? We have heard contributions from Members from all four nations of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I represent the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in God’s own county of Yorkshire, and we also have many producers and growers who have a relationship with supermarkets, and have been expressing their concern to me in advance of this debate. The Groceries Code Adjudicator is hugely important in addressing some of the systematic issues within our food supply chain that have been referenced in the debate. It was set up under the coalition Government, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted. It manages only 14 retailers, which cover a vast swathe of the food market, but that does not go far enough. Competition puts huge pressures on our suppliers and growers further down the chain, which is why it is vital that the Groceries Code Adjudicator addresses unfair practices. The questions that have been raised in this debate are those of power, funding and resource. In 2024, a survey run by the GCA reported a reduction in the number of groceries code issues and an increase in supplier satisfaction with retailers, where issues were raised. I question that report. All Members speaking in this debate have picked up on the fear among growers and producers of being blacklisted if concerns are raised, and a reluctance to even report, because of the huge pressure that can be put on them by the retailers. The 14 retailers included in the scope of the GCA and the code of practice cover a significant proportion of the UK market. However, it misses a number of smaller but significant retailers. That is the point I want to build on, as mentioned by other Members today. Has the Minister considered reducing the £1 billion turnover threshold that marks the point where businesses must be compliant? If that threshold were removed, many more retailers would be brought into the fold of the GCA. Members have advocated for that in today’s debate. The work of the GCA is important in maintaining the health of our supply chains. An unfair contract between a retailer and a producer or grower can be devastating. We have heard the points made in the debate—the challenges are huge. That can result in growers and producers being locked into unfair contracts. Orders can be cancelled unnecessarily. The Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), made a point early on in the debate about potatoes—they were of sufficient quality for any consumer to eat, and yet, because they did not meet the exact specification from the retailer, the order was not taken.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. At the moment, the risk is all sitting on the shoulders of the growers and producers. That is unfair, because there is a certain expectation of the food they are preparing, whether in quantity or quality, but some of the risk factors are completely out of their control, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) noted. Those factors include weather conditions, which impact many of our farmers and growers. The lack of flexibility in the contracts is another. That is why the GCA must have the teeth that many have talked about in this debate, because these issues go beyond the impacts of the unfair contract. At a time when pressures on our agricultural sector are mounting, additional budgetary pressures were announced by the Government in last year’s Budget. The hike in employer’s national insurance, the family farm tax, which has created a huge amount of uncertainty, the cuts to the sustainable farming incentives, and the drastic reduction in the delinked payments to a cap of £7,200 are all additional cash-flow pressures, exposing our farmers and growers to long-term uncertainty, beyond the challenges associated with the contracts they are entering into with retailers. While the GCA has made hugely important steps, many producers and growers are still unaware of its role and powers. There is absolutely more work to be done within the industry to build awareness and trust of the GCA and its powers, and that is exactly what the nub of this debate is about. We know that pressures are mounting on the agricultural supply chains that run right the way through the system, from farm to fork. One of the shortcomings of the GCA in its current set-up is that it only handles the relationship between the retailer, the supplier and some farmers and growers, missing out many farmers, growers and other intermediaries in the supply chain. That has to be addressed, as has been referenced by many Members in their contributions. That has to be addressed if we want to restore a level of trust in the system, and work to do so has been started. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 were introduced recently, which have a specific focus on milk, and regulations for other products are on their way. But I ask the Minister: what are we doing to address this disjointed approach? It seems that multiple regulators are managing different elements of the supply chain, which is creating more friction and uncertainty for businesses. The experience of the last decade shows the growing case for better lines of communication between the GCA, DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. What conversations has the Minister, in his role representing the Department, had with DEFRA and the GCA? That was a point made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I congratulate him on the work he did in introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, which had the support of the Opposition. Going forward, I hope that the Government will be able to pick up where the last Government left off and not only expand on the fair dealing regulations, but tie in the GCA and its operation to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, providing a joined-up approach to the full supply chain. Although I welcome the increasing scope of regulatory framework on the agricultural supply chain, does the Minister plan to include other products, such as ornamentals, as part of an expanded GCA remit? Ornamentals, like food, are perishable and suffer with the same challenges that many Members have outlined in this debate. What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to increasing the GCA’s powers, funding, resource and people power, so that it has the ability to enact the requests of both sides of this House? I reiterate that trust absolutely needs to be restored into the system, which can only be done by re-establishing better supply chain relationships throughout the system. That relies on giving the GCA more power, more finance and better lines of communication with DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator.