Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  The right to roll out a clean air zone was given to local authorities, enabling them to make that decision, but some local authorities have refused to do so. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, decided not to roll out a clean air zone—that is an example of a Labour administration at a local level making the right decision on this issue. Labour-run Bradford council, however, decided to impose an additional tax on hard-working motorists across the Bradford district. As a result, places in my constituency such as East Morton face increased traffic congestion, road usage and speeding in the areas outside the clean air zone, where motorists try to take different roads to avoid any additional charge. Rural communities will also be hard hit, as has been rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). Many of those businesses are in our farming community, which has already been hit by additional cash-flow implications. One point that has not been raised in this debate so far is the increase in red diesel prices, which have spiked by 60% in the last month alone, as supplies remain tight. From the research I have done, red diesel has increased up to an average of 109p a litre in March, up from 67p a litre in February. Farming businesses are reporting being quoted a variety of prices in the past month, ranging from 100p a litre to 135p a litre. That is a significant increase from the 67p a litre we saw just last month. Several farmers are rightly querying why red diesel prices appear to have increased much more rapidly than road diesel and petrol prices. What meetings is the Minister having with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers specifically on red diesel, which is having an impact right now on the cash flow of many of our hard-working farmers? That is in addition to delinked payments dramatically dropping, the chop and change over the sustainable farming incentive, and the uncertainty that this Government are creating for many of those working within our farming community, and that is on top of fertiliser prices going up. The Prime Minister said earlier this week that he will always support working people, but what does that say to those hard-working people across the country and across Keighley and Ilkley, such as Lesley O’Brien, who I mentioned earlier? Businesses and employers face bigger and bigger hurdles the longer this Labour Government are in power. Three consecutive rises in fuel duty is an insult to hard-working people across this country. The Prime Minister and this Government need to get a grip, back our hard-working businesses and show some empathy to those concerns consistently being raised by Opposition Members. It is disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, that we have not heard one Labour Back Bencher contribution in an incredibly important debate on fuel duty.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. By taxing families and individuals less, we provide them with more money in their pockets and we drive economic growth, as they have more of their own domestic spending power. This Labour Government want to hit many businesses and individuals with three consecutive fuel duty hikes in a matter of months. If these proposals go ahead, motorists and haulage companies face being hit with the biggest tax burden in years. The road haulage industry is critical to our nation’s economic success: goods are moved around daily, and logistics are key to keeping our country moving. Everything we eat, drink, wear and consume depends on road haulage services—on companies such as Freightlink Europe. Road freight moves 81% of all goods, and 98% of all agricultural and food products are moved around the country by road haulage. The Road Haulage Association estimates that a 5p rise in fuel duty will result in a typical motor vehicle-owning household spending an extra £100 each year and increase annual household spending by £1.9 billion, which is a whopping £7.3 billion over the rest of this Parliament. In my eyes, that is a significant additional tax burden for this Government to put on those households. At a time when the conflict in the middle east is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, it is beyond belief that Labour wants to push ahead with this fuel duty hike.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to the additional challenges in rural areas, but he makes a clear and concise point: if people have to travel further for a job opportunity, they are going to be taxed more by this Labour Government. That is on top of the Labour Government removing the rural services delivery grant that was providing additional support to many local authorities operating in rural communities. We clearly have a Government who are not interested in supporting our rural communities. Of course, this fuel duty hike comes on top of the increase in employer national insurance contributions and business rates. It will impact our care workers, our district nurses and our hospice sector, all of which are also impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions. At a local level across the Bradford district, we face an additional tax burden: the clean air zone, which was rolled out several years ago. A taxi driver with a non-compliant vehicle who wants to travel into Bradford—an area that we all want to see grow and thrive economically—faces a daily charge of £7 to do so. A white van driver is charged £9 daily to go into Bradford, and someone operating a bus or a heavy goods vehicle is charged £50 a day to do so, as a result of the choices that Labour-run Bradford council has made. Labour-run Bradford council has received £20 million from collecting this additional tax from our hard-working businesses over the period that the clean air zone has been in force across Bradford. It is something that I am firmly opposed to. Bradford council will say that it is going to spend this money wisely across the district, but based on a freedom of information request that I submitted to Bradford council, I can contradict that narrative. As of 2023, just £4.1 million of all highways spending was spent within the Keighley and Ilkley constituency over a six-year period. To put that in context, the spending in Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South was £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million respectively. That illustrates that there is no fairness in how Bradford council spends the money it is collecting from my hard-working constituents across Keighley and Ilkley.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate. The debate is particularly timely because, just yesterday, my office received three separate phone calls about three separate addresses in Fell Lane in Keighley, none of which have received their post for the last two weeks, despite those residents specifically expecting letters. I do, however, commend the work of postal workers across the country, without whom we could not function. Let me be clear that my contribution today is aimed not at them, but at the management structures that sit within Royal Mail. I have had various correspondence and meetings with Royal Mail—one in September last year, and two following on from that—specifically raising the cases of my constituents. One pensioner, for example, waited more than two weeks for a new bank card to arrive. In that time, she could not access her pension and do the basics of her weekly food shop. Another constituent waited 10 days for a hospital letter to arrive. He is undergoing chemotherapy, so ended up missing a vital appointment. Distrust of the postal service has become so bad that one of my constituents hand-delivers documents to the court herself, unable to trust the system after receiving papers late in the post. Royal Mail’s website still says that if someone buys a second-class stamp, they can expect that post to be delivered within two to three working days, or indeed on a Saturday, yet in my meetings with Royal Mail staff, they tell me that that is not internally the expectation of the delivery of their service. There is therefore a discontinuity between what they are telling the public and Members of Parliament and how they are operating internally. That must change, and I expect the Minister to hold Royal Mail to account on behalf of my constituents and those of all Members of Parliament here.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  On Royal Mail’s website today, it says that if a customer buys a second-class stamp, they can expect delivery within two or three days, including Saturdays, but since 28 July last year, delivery has not taken place on a Saturday. There seems to be an inconsistency between what Royal Mail is saying publicly and what it is actually delivering. What does my hon. Friend feel that the Minister should do to address this clear anomaly?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  It is frustrating, yet sadly not surprising, that roads across Keighley and Ilkley are facing so many challenges. I lay those challenges at the doorstep of Labour-run Bradford council, which has consistently shown disregard for the needs of the people across Keighley and Ilkley. That is backed up by a freedom of information request that I made in 2023, which found that over a six-year period, just £4.1 million of the district’s highways funding was spent in Keighley and Ilkley, equating to just 4% of the total funding over that period, yet Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South—all held by Labour MPs—received £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million, respectively. It is beyond belief that my constituents have received much less funding compared with other areas across the Bradford district. I would therefore like to understand what the Minister will do to hold to account local authorities that do not share their highways funding equally across the districts they represent.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  All political parties undertake a vast amount of data collection on their voter base. A good proportion of that data illustrates that the vast majority of people will cast their vote based on the political party rather than the individual. The individual carries less weight in someone’s mind when they cast their vote. Therefore, does the hon. Member agree that triggering a by-election on the basis of a defection is crucial to ensure that voters are represented by someone who reflects how the vast majority cast their vote at the ballot box?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his point, which I think aligns with my own point: it is the make-up of the political party that gains the confidence of the House, and therefore its leader is appointed Prime Minister, should they get a mandate to be so, based on the numbers. Where I do not feel that a by-election should be triggered aligns with the points made by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds. If a Member of Parliament is unfortunate enough to lose the Whip and therefore sits in the House as an independent, I do not feel that that should necessarily trigger a by-election, because it might be subject to circumstances outside that Member’s control—political difference associated with a particular policy and therefore voting the other way. The Whips may use that as a mechanism for removing the party Whip, but I do not think that that should trigger a by-election in those circumstances. I want to be clear on that. To summarise, politics is about trust, and at a time when the relationship between politicians and the electorate is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly fractious, it is vital that our democratic system holds us to account for the promises on which we as individuals associated with a political party were elected, the platform on which we chose to stand for election, and ultimately the manifesto commitments that we stood by.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is unfortunate that although we have a 3-hour allocation to discuss this important topic, other Members of this House that have not felt it worthy of coming along to do so, despite having changed party in this parliamentary Session or in the previous one. It would have been interesting to have gained their views. I thank the over 129,000 individuals who signed the petition, illustrating that they care deeply and are passionate about a subject that is ultimately about trust. I have been fortunate enough to represent Keighley and Ilkley for more than six years now, facing an election twice in that time in two very different political environments. In 2019, I was elected in a Conservative landslide, and more recently in 2024, I was elected during a time when national results were very much going the other way. Keighley and Ilkley is—or should be—a classic bellwether seat, and up until the last election, there had never been both a Labour Government nationally and a Conservative MP locally since the creation of the seat in 1885. In fact, ahead of the 2024 general election, 12 major polling companies predicted a Labour landslide in Keighley and Ilkley. Electoral Calculus gave me a 97% chance of losing my seat. I do not make these points merely to blow my own trumpet; the point I am making is that politics is ultimately about trust. When we are elected by our constituents, they are putting their trust in us. They are trusting us not only to be a strong advocate for the area that we represent, but to stand by our manifesto pledges, both at a local level and those of the political party we represent. We stand by the values and commitments of the party we represent. The vast majority of us in this House are supported by volunteers who share our values, often hold party membership and support our policies, which have implications for all our constituencies. Owing to the Representation of the People Act 1969, at every voting booth across the country our electors are greeted not only by our own names but by our party names and party logos. They put their cross in the box against a name and a party that they wish to represent them. A proportion of people out there will, of course, vote for the individual who they feel is most committed to representing them, but they are also casting their vote for a political party. As has been demonstrated by all political parties, through the data that they collect, a proportion of the electorate cast their vote based on the national political party, rather than the individual who has been chosen to stand in that local area. It therefore comes down to the point that was made in the opening remarks from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds: this petition invites us to debate the difference between the individual and the party. I do feel that when an individual is standing for a political party, if that individual then chooses to defect, cross the Floor of the House and join another political party, it is only right that a by-election is triggered. That would give the electorate the absolute reassurance that they can cast their vote according to political party. Likewise, if they want to reassert their trust in the individual regardless of the political party they are now associated with, that should happen in a by-election.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that point, but my point is that when a general election takes place, the individual voter casts their vote for an individual associated with a political party, which has a mandate—if it gets into power—based on a manifesto. The party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper. It is the manifesto that is associated with that political party. I do feel there is a difference. I am strongly of the view that if an individual Member of Parliament associated with a political party decides to change course and stand for a different political party —crosses the Floor of the House—an automatic by-election should be triggered, which ultimately gives their constituents the right to choose. That is slightly different from the debate about political leadership, because a party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that I am not going to lose the Whip by taking a slightly different view from what seems to be my party’s position. Why would an individual not stand as an independent, if he or she had the confidence of getting elected? Surely there is a huge advantage in standing under the brand of a political party, because that inevitably brings a good element of the voter base to that individual. Will my hon. Friend expand on the difference between standing as an independent and standing as a member of a political party?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  Before the hon. Member gets on to how we should change the whole system, I am keen to understand the Liberal Democrats’ view on the petition specifically. Should a defection trigger a by-election?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I am always amazed when a Minister says at the Dispatch Box, “I have listened very carefully to the contributions,” yet they are reading from a speech that was written before they turned up to the debate. Let me ask the Minister this. A proportion of people will vote for the individual based not only on their name, but on their association with a political party. If they change their political allegiance during the Parliament, how does the Minister think that is fair to the wider electoral base?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  That is my point. While a lot of us, as advocates of constituency areas, do our best day in, day out, advocating on behalf of our constituents and campaigning on the local issues that matter to give us the biggest advantage possible by building up our authenticity on those issues, a good proportion of the electorate vote based on the political party with which the candidates are associated. In 2019, a good proportion of the electorate could not stand the possibility of a Labour Government and voted to get Brexit done, which we advocated for. I know from conversations on the doorstep that there was an element of the electorate who had never voted Conservative before, but who decided to vote for us in 2019 based on the national offering. That builds into my point that, whenever an individual defects—as happened recently north of the border, with the defection of a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament to the Liberal Democrats—a by-election should be triggered. It will be interesting to see what the Liberal Democrat policy is on that. Trust is at stake, because too often disillusionment builds up among the wider electorate, and defections exaggerate that.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely take the view that a defection at the local constituency level should trigger a by-election, which will ultimately restore the voters’ ability to decide who they want to represent them, whether that is the individual who has changed political party or someone else. When there is a change in the leader of any political party, it is up to the MPs of that party to determine whether that individual represents the party in the role of its leader. That applies to all political parties. The reason is that when an individual goes to vote at the ballot box, they are predominantly voting for two things: the individual who represents them at a local level, and the political party. The name of the leader of that party is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is. I believe that there is a difference, regardless of who is in charge politically at a national level, between a change of leader and a change in the direct relationship between the constituent and the individual who represents them while standing on behalf of a political party. As I say, the name of the leader of the political party is not on the ballot paper, so I think there is a difference.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I met Toby Hammond, the lead volunteer for West Yorkshire scouts. Astonishingly, the scouts have learned that they could be hit by Labour’s new tourist tax, which is being introduced by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin. Because the tax is on overnight stays, it could apply to youth camps, outdoor experiences and sleepovers run by volunteers at scout groups across Keighley and Ilkley, who give up their evenings for the benefit of our young people. The tax will hit thousands of children and young people, who will be negatively impacted. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on this issue, and join me in urging the Mayor of West Yorkshire to scrap this tax once and for all? It is impacting many of our scout groups, which continue to do vital work for our young people.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We absolutely do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point, because we all know that the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is proportionately higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and therefore a huge proportion of Northern Ireland farmers—4,500 of them—who are working incredibly hard are still going to be impacted by the rate relief change that this Labour Government have implemented. They are going to be detrimentally impacted, and that has a wider negative impact on the rural economy. Despite this partial U-turn, by increasing the level of the agricultural and business property relief thresholds from £1 million to £2.5 million for inheritance tax, the Government will risk once again showing their disregard for the farming community should they neglect to support amendments 89 and 90, which seek to address yet another measure seemingly designed to punish our farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association is a dedicated organisation that represents the interests of all those within our farming community who do not own land, and it is heavily involved in supporting the tenanted sector. I spoke with members of the TFA just this morning and the chief executive, George Dunn, who has excellent knowledge of, and commitment to, the tenanted sector and has provided many a briefing to many Members of this House. It is deeply disappointing that Government Members do not seem to support amendments 89 and 90 to schedule 12. Should the House fail to agree to the changes in these amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and me, those who inherit a share of a joint tenancy will have no means to capitalise on that share while also having no way to liquidate the asset in the context of continuing business to allow them to pay the tax liability. To date, the value of any inherited portion of a business or agricultural tenancy held jointly following the death of one of the joint tenants has been fully relievable either through agricultural property relief or business property relief. Given that in most cases it will be impossible for the surviving joint tenant or tenants to realise the value of any inherited share of the tenancy on death, it is completely unfair that this tax, proposed by the Labour Government, should be levied. The unfairness is underlined by the fact that an input value for the share of the joint tenancy would have to be calculated on the profit rent basis, which is the best at theoretical value in any case, which just blows out of context the real damage that is being implemented by this Labour Government. Therefore, I urge the Government to learn from their previous mistake, listen to our farmers and protect the value of joint tenancies by supporting these amendments. Amendment 88 seeks to delay the triggering of the instalments that are going to be brought forward by the payment of inheritance tax from the current period of six months by 12 months to a full 18-month period. This is so important—the Government fail to realise this—because of how complex it is to value the assets that are likely to be subjected to an IHT liability. When looking at farming businesses, we are not only valuing the farmland. There may be a farmhouse and a cottage or two, and the livestock, the machinery, the growing crops and the crops in store will all have a value associated with them. It is therefore complex to ascertain the value within the six-month period that the Government have outlined. And it gets more complicated still. We find ourselves in the bizarre scenario where two assets on death with a value of £5 million could be subjected to different IHT liabilities depending on the ownership structure and whether the spousal allowance is being utilised—therefore exposing any tax liability on death to challenge, quite rightly, by those with whom the tax liability sits. To have a deadline of six months for that tax liability to be triggered, and for an instalment to be paid, will simply not be sustainable. I therefore urge the Government to support amendment 89 in my name and that of the official Opposition.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I note that that is the Government’s position, but what level of assessment have they done of the negative implications of having just a six-month period as opposed to extending that to 18 months? From the engagement that Opposition Members have had with many stakeholders, we have found that the consequences are huge. What assessments have the Government done in relation to this specific issue?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities. This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government. Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million. We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates. I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I endorse what the hon. Member says. I cannot get my head around the fact that there are so many family businesses, beyond the agricultural sector, that will be impacted by the business property relief threshold at £2.5 million. They include manufacturing businesses and those in the hospitality sector, and many of them will be in the constituencies of Labour MPs. I cannot understand why, during the course of this Bill, many Labour MPs have been silent on the issue of business property relief, and why they are not standing up for family businesses. I endorse what the hon. Member says about fire sales happening as a result of an increased inheritance tax liability.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak about the changes that have been made in relation to inheritance tax, which is impacting many of our family farming businesses and also those family businesses that operate in many of our constituencies. I rise specifically to speak to amendments 89 and 90, which, if agreed, would remove the liability for inheritance tax on the share of a tenancy at arm’s length that transfers on death. This Government’s ill-handling of the family farm tax has left our farmers in limbo and their confidence in tatters. Thanks to Labour’s disastrous family farm tax and family business tax, our farmers and many hard-working businesses have spent over a year navigating an already challenging time for the sector, with added anxiety and uncertainty hanging over their heads. Despite the warnings from the entire farming community, this Government pushed ahead with the tax, creating chaos, fear and real damage.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Despite the minimal, partial Government U-turn by increasing that threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, the changes are still impacting many of our farming businesses and therefore the wider supply chain. This not only has a negative impact on the level of investment that a family is willing to put into their family business, but has a hugely detrimental impact on the wider supply chain, including on investment in agricultural machinery and the willingness to purchase stock. This is therefore having a massive detrimental impact on the real rural economy right now.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Fur: Import and Sale · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue in her role as a shadow Minister before the general election, in tabling a private Member’s Bill and securing many Westminster Hall debates on animal welfare issues. I congratulate her on securing this important debate. As all Members indicated in their contributions, fur farming has rightly been banned in England and Wales since 2000. Legislation prohibits the keeping and breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter due to the value of their fur, but that was 26 years ago. The hon. Lady raised the issue of fairness in how, while we have a ban in place here, we still enable imports that do not meet our standards. We have not yet achieved a ban on imports. Personally, I feel that is wholly unfair and inadequate, and it needs to be explored. What position do we see ourselves in today? There are several restrictions in place that seek to monitor and control how this trade can be carried out in the UK. There are restrictions on some skin and fur products that may never be legally imported into the UK, including fur from cats and dogs, but we all acknowledge that it still does not go far enough. There are also established controls on fur from endangered species protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species, and on imports of fur from wild animals caught using methods that are non-compliant with international humane trapping standards, but again that does not go far enough. Under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012—EU regulations that have now been assimilated into UK law—any textile product that contains real fur or other animal-derived materials must carry the mandatory label: “Contains non-textile parts of animal origin”. That wording must appear exactly as specified and must be clearly visible to consumers. The regulations require all textile products to display a label identifying their fibre content, including any fur, leather or bone. I would argue that is not adequate or clear enough to a consumer who is buying a product, and therefore it does not go far enough. Many Members have rightly said that while we have banned fur farming and created a direction for other countries to follow, continuing to enable imports is still offshoring our responsibility. I therefore urge the Government to explore that route. We know that fur imports are decreasing. Under the previous Administration, as we all know, animal welfare standards increased and the volume of fur imported fell by 50% in five years. The trend is declining and there is a decrease in consumers buying imported fur, so the economics back the position of taking a much stronger approach to banning imported fur. A consultation was launched seeking views on the fur market. The call for evidence received over 30,000 responses from businesses, representative bodies and individuals, demonstrating strong public support and interest. It is good to see that the Government have now published the responses to that consultation, but I would like to understand from the Minister how the Government will go forward. In addition to the interests of businesses, it is clear that this is an issue that matters to the British public. A petition to ban fur imports was launched by the Fur Free Britain campaign, receiving over 1.5 million signatures. The issue has also been debated many times in this place. We all acknowledge that this demonstrates a strong feeling from the British people that the import of fur should be banned. I would like to clearly understand the Government’s position following the Animal Welfare Committee’s report, which was published following that petition. The Government announced their animal welfare strategy in December. Much of it was welcome, but I want to ask the Minister why it did not include a ban on fur imports, as it had previously been indicated that an incoming Labour Government would be willing to explore that. I also want to seek clarity from the Government on the potential timeframe for any additional consultation that is likely to be announced on this issue. What will they be doing, in addition to what is announced in the animal welfare strategy, to explore the issue further? As has been said, much good work has been done by previous Administrations, and there is an indication of more of this in the animal welfare strategy, to improve animal welfare generally in this country. That was picked up by one of the contributions about ear cropping. We cannot be in a scenario where we are banning things from happening here but effectively enabling an equivalent product—whether it is food, a live animal or a product from a live animal—that is banned or that does not meet our expected level of animal welfare to come into the country. That is simply unfair, and I want to push the Minister on what the Government’s position is on the timing of that going forward.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)) for securing this debate. In Keighley we have an urgent challenge: the last Conservative Government allocated more than £2 million to Keighley Cougars to build a new stand, but the money is still being withheld by Bradford council. It needs to be unlocked so we can get that stand built urgently. Would the Minister, or his counterpart in MHCLG, meet me so we can discuss that and try to get that money unlocked for Keighley Cougars?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  In 2014, a man in my constituency was ambushed, violently beaten with a pickaxe handle and left lying in the street with serious injuries. At the time of the conviction, the judge called it a “brutal attack”. Many constituents have contacted me to express their concern that the perpetrator of this attack is still a sitting Labour councillor in Keighley and was recently pictured celebrating an election with convicted crack cocaine and heroin dealers. Prime Minister, on behalf of all victims of serious crime, will you, as the leader of the Labour party, ensure that Councillor Mohsin Hussain is not permitted to stand in the local elections this May?