Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, Craven, Worth Valley, and indeed my wider constituency area. I want to focus on a specific part of the Government’s announcement and the real frustration that all my constituents will now face, as a result of the Government’s decision, a 9.9% increase in their council tax. That comes as a result of a request put forward by our Labour Administration, which runs Bradford council, for a 15% increase in council tax. The Government have instead decided to instigate a 9.9% increase without any opportunity for a referendum to allow my constituents to choose whether they deem that to be reasonable. That is a choice by this Labour Government to impose a significant council tax increase on hard-working families, and not only in my constituency but across the wider Bradford district.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not all employers sing from the same hymn sheet by providing that good level of support and care to their employees while they are going through very traumatic situations. Some employers are very good, but not all carry out the same level of care for their employees during such difficult situations. That is why Christina’s petition has been so well recognised in the amount of support that it gained, gathering 102,316 signatures. In my Keighley and Ilkley constituency, I have received many pieces of correspondence on this issue, and it can be harrowing—as a Member of Parliament, as I am sure all of us have done this—listening to some of the very real challenges that parents face in such situations, including the financial, support and emotional challenges. In support, the Petitions Committee carried out its survey on the back of Christina’s petition, asking people who had signed it how the severe illness of children affects them as parents. I am thankful to the 9,609 people who submitted a response to the Petitions Committee as part of our review of the petition. The huge response rate to not only the petition, but the follow-up demonstrates just how much of an issue this is, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly to some of the concerns that have been raised. The survey suggests that the majority of parents affected do manage to cope with the challenge, but crucially, this is only possible for those who have understanding and accommodating employers, as has been mentioned.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  To sum up, I first want to thank Christina, because without her and the circumstances she has brought to our attention, we would not have had the petition, the over 100,000 signatures that have attached themselves to it and therefore this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank not only Christina but Skye for their absolute courage and endeavour throughout the incredibly difficult challenges that they and their family have had, and for enabling us to bring this debate forward. This has been a really robust debate—in the politest of senses—in terms of the subjects that have been covered. There has been real recognition of the fact that more data needs to be collected so that we can ensure that the legislation being introduced by Government is practically workable on the ground. We have also covered off the fact that not every employer is necessarily doing the right thing in terms of their own obligations. It is good to see that the Government have recognised that more work needs to be done to make sure that each employer and employee knows their obligations to one another so that, should the difficult circumstances arise where a child is ill, the employer will put out the best protection as quickly as possible to meet their employee’s needs. I reiterate that there is space potentially to improve the Employment Rights Bill, based on the concerns raised throughout the debate. It is good to hear that the Minister—through my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—has guaranteed a meeting. Let all those who signed the petition be well aware that a meeting will follow this debate, and we can only hope that there will be good outcomes from it. My final point is that, where carers are permitted to have carer’s allowance, they should not have to wait for an end-of-life prognosis for the payment to be fast-tracked. The Government machinery should be able to operate much more quickly, so that the carer of any child who is ill can get the allowance as quickly as possible—certainly within the 90-day period, and not at the last minute. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed, and I thank those in the Gallery—Christina, Skye and their friend—for attending the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That highlights the associated challenges for parents, and not only the financial ones that can unexpectedly be put on them, but the emotional challenges and anxiety-related issues. Whether the scenario involves a short-term care plan being put in place or something much longer, that anxiety is absolutely there and needs to be recognised. As I was saying, a diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue, and a parent, of course, has to deal with it. They have no other choice but to make the situation work, and that can be incredibly difficult. Complexities will arise in the care programme of the child, no doubt, and it will be emotionally draining for all involved, but the parent has to get on with it. This injustice certainly resonates across the country.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  I always agree that it is fine in this place for us to be designing guidance, regulations or indeed other legislation, but unless it practically works and has the positive impact it was designed to have, it benefits no one. More datasets and data collected and available to Government to help them make the right decisions is always welcome. I endorse the hon. Lady’s point. Employers and their employees often struggle to come to an acceptable arrangement, as the group It’s Never You has indicated, so it is important that the Government outline the support that is already available to those employees and employers, whether that is a break or flexible working. We should also be encouraging businesses to think outside the box, as highlighted to me by the Rainbow Trust and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development when I was preparing for this debate. They told me that flexible working is vital; for the parent of a sick child with complex needs, it is so important that flexible working, or part-time work, can be put in place. But, as many employers said to me during my preparation for this debate, although good employers do as much as they can to facilitate the needs of a parent with a seriously ill child, not every job environment allows flexible working to take place. That has to be recognised. One problem that was raised by all the parties I spoke to about this issue was just how long it can take for support, such as carer’s allowance, to kick in. Again, we come back to the crucial first 90 days, a period that is in part defined by how long it takes state aid to arrive. In those 90 days, parents can feel completely lost when it comes to knowing their rights and how they can use those rights to ease their situation. Businesses may be just as ignorant of the rights and support mechanisms actually available, and time spent researching that, once a challenge has been put to them by a parent with a seriously ill child, can delay support being put in place. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that, through the best means possible, employers are well equipped with the right amount of support, and that their rights and those of employees are laid out. My first question, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer today, is: how will the Government ensure that employees are aware of their rights before a crisis is put before them; and how often are employers made aware of the obligations on them? Secondly, what work are the Government undertaking to ensure that support such as carer’s allowance is delivered as quickly as possible? For many families, their income can drop to zero overnight, and reaching the end of the first month can be the greatest challenge. With a doctor’s note or an employment record, it should not be difficult to determine the truth of an applicant’s status. Finally, the key point, which has been reiterated throughout the evidence given to me in preparation for this debate, is that the most important change is about giving certainty to struggling families, to allow them to get through and recover quickly from these terrible ordeals. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are looking at providing some clarity through statutory requirements for the provision of career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. We know from the work undertaken on neonatal complications that the Government are open to the concept, so what logical reason can there be for this support to end with an arbitrary cut-off, based on the age of the child? I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the contributions that are made in this debate. I thank Christina and the more than 100,000 signatories who have provided support for this debate to happen in this House. I also thank everyone who contributed to the work of the Petitions Committee in preparation for this debate and those who responded to the survey undertaken by the Petitions Committee. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions to this debate.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. That absolutely highlights the importance of why the petition needs to be considered by the Government and the Minister of the day. The Employment Rights Bill that is working its way through the House includes some positive measures. Potentially, this petition is an additional thought that the Minister should consider, given the strength of feeling shown through the number of people who have signed it. In the vast majority of cases, these situations are completely unexpected. As I said, who knows when a child is going to become seriously ill? A diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue and a parent has to deal with it.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member must have read my speech, because I will come later to the importance of all employers and employees being aware of the rights that already exist. There are a number of protection measures out there. The challenge is that employers and employees do not necessarily know what support is available. Through the survey conducted by the Petitions Committee, we can see, as in Christina’s case, that when an employer is less flexible—or outright unhelpful, as we have seen in certain circumstances—things quickly get worse. Some 99% of respondents believed that employers should be required to provide career breaks for parents of terminally ill children. What Christina and thousands of other people are calling out for is statutory reassurance that, as soon as they are able to go back to work, the job will be available for them, at least for a limited period. That reassurance—that as soon as treatment is complete, life can go back to normal—is hugely important for the parents’ mental health and to help them plan their future financial situation. Many families can afford to take a short-term hit to care for their child, although not all can, and they cannot do so without a guaranteed time period within which they can get back into the workplace at the end of that employment break. That is why I reiterate the importance of the petition. The key point about reassurance was raised with me by It’s Never You, a charity run by two individuals who care deeply about the issue because they suffered the tragic loss of their own child from the terrible illness of cancer in 2021. When I met them, they passionately explained that getting support in place from day one is a major issue. For the first 90 days after a child has been diagnosed with a terrible illness, parents have to go through an incredible amount of restructuring in their life, so having their employer’s support from day one is vital. As employers themselves, those individuals are all too aware of the burden that a statutory requirement for a career break would have on smaller businesses, but they correctly highlighted to me that the lack of any Government-directed standard or benchmark is a recipe for chaos—and, as has already been indicated, many employers and employees do not necessarily know what level of support is available when a child is diagnosed with a serious illness.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member’s intervention gets to the nub of the why this petition is so important: not all employers are doing the right thing by their employees. That parent may be a single parent or have no support around them, and they can end up in a very difficult situation, having to deal quite immediately with the challenge that they face. A lack of reassurance in the workplace can add to their anxiety.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. No parent should have to go through the upset and anguish of seeing their child diagnosed or suffering with a serious illness. Sadly, it is not within our power to prevent these terrible situations, but what is within our power as legislators is to provide support and reassurance to parents who end up in those traumatic situations. We can help ease not only the process, but the parents’ return to work at the end of their child’s treatment, or throughout the child’s treatment, should the individual circumstances permit. We should remember that the workplace and being in work is often about more than just money, although of course money is very important. Work gives us a sense of purpose, belonging and normality. It can therefore be a terrible situation for a parent if they rather unexpectedly find themselves in the position of not only losing their job, but fearing for their child’s health. Sometimes, with care treatment plans being longer than expected, additional complexities may arise if the child is particularly unwell. Depending on the child’s illness, they may need to attend regular appointments at the hospital, sometimes more often than was originally envisaged, or there may be a dedicated treatment centre that is further than one may have initially realised. Therefore, the treatment and care that has to be provided by the parent is sometimes not known at the outset and can be particularly onerous. Some children may need around-the-clock care and attention, with no other family member or friend to provide that additional care, or the parent may simply be the only person the child has to care for them. At the end of the treatment, whether it is successful or not, it can sometimes be incredibly difficult for the parent to return to the workplace. Indeed, the job may not be waiting for them at the end, ready for them to return to. The parent may struggle to get back into the jobs market at a cost to them, their children and the state. Let us take the situation of Christina Harris, who started this petition and who, I am honoured to say, is with us in the Public Gallery. Indeed, I was honoured to meet Christina before the debate, and it is great to see her, her friends and her child, Skye, here. Skye was diagnosed during a Christmas period, and on the first day back to work, Christina was told that she would not be paid and was shocked to discover that she had no statutory protection to fall back on. Skye’s treatment, once diagnosed, was to take approximately two years. Although Christina’s employer could not provide her wages during the time that Christina was caring for Skye, her employer at least kept the role open to Christina while she was initially absent from work. Six months in, Christina was asked to attend a meeting with her employer in which she felt that she was put in a very difficult position, and her employer was completely unwilling at the start to discuss the flexible working options. After another six months, Christina’s employment contract was terminated, despite her having provided 19 years’ of service to the same company, and obviously she still had to deal with Skye’s care. It is great to see that Skye is on the mend and returning to a good state of health. After a year of uncertainty, Christina was left taking part-time work to make ends meet while struggling with providing the care for Skye. This situation is unlike any other regarding parenthood and work. Let us take the example of a parent having an accident; parents have access to bereavement leave. One of the better parts of the Employment Rights Bill that is going through this House includes a right to neonatal leave and pay, easing this exact issue for newborns, but not for older children. Even in the classic case of unplanned pregnancy affecting a career, parents still have nine months to prepare, but a child can become ill at a moment’s notice and through no fault of the parents or the child. Despite that, however, the options for support are incredibly limited, which is why the petition is before the House.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Whether it be the drastic reduction in business property relief and agricultural property relief, which will decimate many family businesses, or the increase in employer national insurance, which will negatively impact all businesses, including the GP surgeries in Keighley that have told me they are now deciding to freeze recruitment, or the increase in the minimum wage or in business rates, or, perhaps, the Employment Rights Bill, which will cost businesses £45 billion a year, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say, in his statement on growing the economy, which of these measures he thinks will grow the economy most?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Extremism Review · Hansard source

  More

  In Keighley, we have seen how labelling legitimate concerns around grooming gangs as far-right has distorted conversations, silenced victims and inadvertently given space to bad faith actors. It is therefore incredibly concerning to see this report written by Home Office officials using similar language, calling grooming gangs an “alleged” problem and once again framing this issue through the lens of the far right rather than the eyes of victims. Does the Minister agree with the language used in the report around grooming gangs? If not, how can he, or the Home Secretary, have faith in the Home Office officials?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this incredibly important debate. Here we are yet again, having summoned yet another Minister to the House. We have slowly worked our way through all the DEFRA Ministers, and now here we are with the Treasury. I welcome the new Treasury Minister to his place; he is replacing the Farming Minister, who seems to have disappeared from these debates. I hope the new Treasury Minister lasts longer in his post than the infamous “Ed Stone”, which he was so proud to have masterminded. Let us remember why we are here. Last weekend, the NFU’s farming day of unity saw one of the biggest agricultural rallies, which took place in all parts of the United Kingdom, with people from all walks of life coming together to support our farmers. That followed protests outside supermarkets and Westminster, and at auction marts, but still the Government refuse to get behind our farming community and listen. Let them be under no illusion: the strength of feeling outside this place is rightly strong, and the issue will not go away. When the Government announced this policy, I thought they were just being naive. Then I thought they were perhaps being arrogant. Now the only conclusion I can come to is that this is a vindictive policy aimed at our farming community. That is because the Government are still unwilling to listen to the concerns raised by Members and stakeholders, whether that be the NFU, the CLA or the Tenant Farmers Association. The Chancellor is yet to engage with any of them. Although the Government will no doubt claim that only affect 27% of farms will be affected, research conducted by those industry experts concludes that at least 75% of commercial family farms will be, because the £1 million threshold will impact the many. This disconnect stems from significant flaws in the Government’s methodology, which fails to account for the many market conditions and economic realities that our farming businesses face. Given that the average size of a farm is about 200 acres, the average value of a farm holding will without doubt be well in excess of the £1 million threshold. When we take into account the value of the farmland; the farmhouse, and potentially a cottage or two; and any stocks, machinery or growing crops that may be in store, it will exceed the £1 million cap, therefore impacting the farming business. When we take into account the profit that a business may be making—or indeed struggling to make—on an average-sized farm of 200 acres, it is going to struggle to pay that bill. What do farmers do? What are the options available to them? They can sell assets to pay the inheritance tax bill, or they can sell some of the livestock or some of the machinery, stocks or crops that may be in store, all impacting the productivity of that farming unit. Alternatively, they may want to take out a loan, which is an option suggested by the Government. I do not know whether the Treasury Minister has spoken to any banks, but I have, and none of them is saying that they will offer a loan to pay a tax bill. That is because the gearing of many of our family farming businesses is so highly strung that they could not pay any additional loan that may be granted to them, because the serviceability of that debt, which probably exists alongside the family farming business they already occupy, is so strongly geared. That is before we take into account all the other budgetary consequences the Government have brought about: the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions, the increase in the minimum wage, the immediate effect of delinked payments, the removal of capital grants, the fertiliser tax that will no doubt be introduced and the double-cab pick-up tax. All impact the profitability and productivity of our many family farming businesses. This policy will also lead to a significant reduction in the land available to rent, given that around two thirds of working farms rent some or all of their land. That is before we take into account the human cost. Farming can be a very lonely business, and I fear that the added weight of the changes to not only agricultural property relief but business property relief will be forcing some of the older generation, including those who are seriously ill at the moment, to make decisions right now. Indeed, I have spoken to a few. I spoke to one farmer just last week who is aged 78 and in ill health. If he passes away before April 2026, any death tax will be zero. If he passes away after April 2026, the death tax imposed on his family will be over £1 million. What decisions is that individual having to make right now? Those are the consequences of the decisions and choices this Government have made. Will the Government have the moral courage to pause their actions and consult the industry experts I mentioned, as well as Opposition Members who continue to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents? As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has rightly asked every time she has been at the Dispatch Box, will the Government record farm suicides in the next few months so that we can properly assess the human impact of the choices this Labour Government are making? What measures could be put in place to mitigate the impact of these changes on those who are already over retirement age or in serious ill health? They have held on to these assets for many years and many generations, and they simply want to be in a position to hand them down to the next generation. I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Why on earth has an economic impact assessment been undertaken of the consequences of the changes to agricultural property relief, and of agricultural property relief dual-claimed with business property relief, but not solely of business property relief? Has any impact assessment been taken into account in the changes to inheritance tax, as well as the wider budgetary changes as a result of the measures I have already alluded to? Why do the Government believe that it is unnecessary to take into account the size of a family farm when indicating the negative consequences that this proposal will have? If they implement a £1 million threshold, the size of a farm absolutely matters, because that takes into account not only the amount of land being farmed, but the existing productivity and the assets retained within that business. Why is the size of the farms not being taken into account? If the Government are so determined to push ahead, can they tell us why on earth have they arrived at the £1 million threshold as the appropriate figure? How do they deal with the progressive disappearance of the residence nil rate band on estates valued at more than £2 million? How will they protect tenanted land on estates that will be valued at levels much higher than any threshold? What hope is there for the tenant farmer who is told that their landlord is now having to liquidate the capital value tied up in the land that they rent to satisfy the Government’s potential tax liability? As a result, that tenant farmer will have no tenancy, because the tenancy will have to come to an end. For the tenant farmer, that will mean losing their home, their business and their livelihood. No amount of tax planning will help those tenant farmers to find a way forward. In setting out the £1 million threshold, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that she wanted to protect hard-working family farmers. I can tell the Minister that all family farmers are hard-working, so why on earth was the threshold set at that level? On behalf of the tenant farming sector, I can say that whatever level is set, it will do nothing to protect our tenant farmers. They will be impacted by the collateral damage caused by the decisions their landlord will have to make. Just this week, the noble Lord Mackinlay of Richborough received an answer to a written parliamentary question in the other place that stated that agricultural property relief and business property relief on assets tied up in private pension funds will not receive any of the reliefs that Ministers are citing. As the Pensions Minister, can the Minister confirm that and explain why the Government have further excluded farms held under those types of ownership from this calculation? Given the Government’s response in the other place, they will absolutely be impacted. There is much more to do. As we have indicated, the Conservatives will reverse this disastrous family farm tax, which will impact hard-working family farms. The Opposition position is clear: this policy is bad for farming businesses, bad for rural economic growth, bad for food prices and bad for food security. Farmers can see it, the NFU can see it, the CLA can see it, the Tenant Farmers Association can see it and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers—of which I must declare I am a fellow, Mr Stringer—can see it. The supermarkets can see it, the Opposition can see it and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—the one lonely Labour MP sitting on the Government Benches—can see it, so why on earth can the Government not see it?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  And supermarkets. The Minister and Government are, dare I say it, alone on this point. Secondly, as he did not allow my intervention earlier, will the Minister confirm why the Government are not taking into account the value and the size of agricultural units when projecting the impact the changes will have on family farming businesses and farming businesses?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm when he and the Government will start listening to the points being made by everybody outside this place—different stakeholders, banks, accountants—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  You are not listening to the question.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Agricultural Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Despite stating in 2021 that it was in “strong financial health”, Labour-controlled Bradford council now wants to put up council tax for my constituents by a whopping 15%. This is a shocking situation, resulting from continuous mismanagement by our council leaders, who have splashed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on Bradford city centre projects, including £50 million on a music venue that is finished but not yet open, despite our city of culture status. All the while, the council has let children’s services degrade to an unacceptable level, despite the last Conservative Government stepping in and issuing it a bail-out just last year. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on how to stop local people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, the Worth valley and my wider constituency paying the price for Bradford council leaders’ failures?

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  Airedale hospital has some of the worst RAAC of all the hospitals on the new hospital programme. All the surveys have said that given the risk profile associated with RAAC, parts of the hospital will have no life expectancy beyond 2030, which is why the completion date of 2030 was so important. With funds having been allocated to the project for it to be delivered, it is disappointing to hear today that the start date will be between 2025 and 2030. When is it likely that the new, rebuilt Airedale hospital will open? Will the Health Secretary provide the trust with confidence that additional funds will be available to help with the mitigation that needs to take place before the new hospital can open, to keep the existing hospital operational?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  The House will be well aware that I have been consistently campaigning for a rape gangs inquiry into child sexual expectation across Keighley and the wider Bradford district for far too long. So I welcome some of the points that the Home Secretary has made, particularly on the implementation of the 20 recommendations from the IICSA report. Unfortunately, I do not feel that she is going far enough, and I would like to make a few points. In particular, I have serious concerns about the ability of inquiries at a local level to compel witnesses to give evidence and about the amount of funding that will be made available. Will the local inquiries that the Home Secretary is advocating be truly independent, not just local authorities marking their own homework, and will they lead to convictions? Local authority leaders in Bradford district have consistently refused to back my calls for a public inquiry, as has the Mayor of West Yorkshire and the deputy mayor for policing, Alison Lowe. How on earth are we meant to get across this barrier of local leaders refusing to have an inquiry on this issue without the Government stepping in and giving the statutory authority that we on this side of the House are demanding?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  We all have to acknowledge that water companies have not been meeting their environmental obligations for far too long. That is why we implemented the monitoring. Regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency—need robust powers so that they can carry out enforcement. The water restoration fund ringfenced money collected from the water companies and that allowed farmers, landowners and the many great campaigning organisations that want to carry out nature-based solutions to improve water quality, and there was the additional expectation that water companies put in place their own improvement measures. I ask the Minister: why on earth would the Government not want to continue that approach? My third point is about bathing water designations, which are a fantastic way of reassuring those who want to bathe in specific areas, whether our lakes, rivers or coastal environments. They also put a greater obligation on the Environment Agency and water companies to carry out additional monitoring. In May 2024, I was delighted to announce 27 new bathing water sites ahead of the 2024 bathing water season. That brought the number of bathing water sites across England up to 451. In addition, I announced a review of the bathing water regulations, which I had been advocating for some time. Our constituents do not just swim at bathing water sites, but use them for other activities, including canoeing, kayaking and other water-based activities. I very much wanted to see the review of the bathing water regulations, and we announced the change to increase the user basis. I also wanted to see an increase in bathing water designations beyond May to September so that all-year monitoring could take place, and the removal of the automatic de-designation of poor sites so that sites that had been consistently rated poor could keep their designation to keep up the pressure on the water companies and the Environment Agency to continue monitoring. Will the Minister update the House on what is happening with that announcement, which was made last year? What is she doing to ensure bathing water regulations are enhanced and improved? In the run-up to the general election, Labour made huge promises about what it would do to improve water quality. I feel that it is falling far short on its promises to the electorate. Although we will work constructively with the Government to improve their measures, campaigners—it is not just me—feel that the Water (Special Measures) Bill does not go far enough, and investors feel that they are being penalised while the Government expect them to carry out improvement measures. The Government are penalising our farmers, not only through the family farm tax, but by not providing water grants to them to carry out improvement measures.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  I come back to the point that monitoring is incredibly important. This is why we brought out a requirement for all water companies to specifically carry out more monitoring: before 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. That is completely unacceptable. We needed to understand the problem so that we could not only use our regulators to enforce water companies to carry out the level of investment we would expect of them, but strongly hold those water companies, and indeed all polluters, to account. I encourage the Government to keep going with that, which is why we have taken a constructive approach to the Water (Special Measures) Bill that is working its way through the House. There are three points which I want to focus on and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them in her response. First are the points that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), to do with the £35 million allocation to the River Wye action plan, announced earlier this year. The River Wye action plan was specifically designed to address those challenges to do with pollution from our farmers. The plan set out a range of measures to begin protecting the river immediately from pollution and establish a long-term plan to restore the river for future generations. That included requiring large poultry farms to export manure away from areas where they would otherwise cause excess pollution and providing a fund of up to £35 million for grant support for on-farm poultry manure combustion combustors in the River Wye special area of conservation. The plan also appointed a chair. I would therefore like to ask the Minister why the plan has been dropped, despite those things having been put in place? Where has the £35 million been reallocated? We are now six months into this Labour Government, but yet there has been no announcement on the River Wye and I fear that there will be no action taken. We are almost coming up to a year since that plan was worked on. If the Minister could update the House on that, it would be greatly appreciated. The second point is the water restoration fund, which was specifically designed to ringfence money that had been collected from those water companies that had been polluting, to focus specifically on improving water quality. The fund, when it was announced, allocated £11 million-worth of penalties collected from water companies to be offered on a grant basis to local support groups, farmers, landowners and community-led schemes. Hon. Members have talked about how good their local campaigners are at utilising funds that are provided to them, and I absolutely endorse that, but that fund was specifically ringfenced for penalty money reclaimed from water companies to be reinvested. The Government are not taking the water restoration fund forward, so will the Minister accept the Conservative amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill on that point? The water restoration fund came exclusively from water company fines and penalties, which are in addition to any other work the company must carry out to repair breaches that it has caused. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not continuing the fund, and why she does not think it is important that water companies clean up their own mess when money has been collected from them?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) on securing this really important debate. Improving water quality is something that we all care about, on all sides of the House. Making sure that all those who pollute are held—in the strongest possible terms—to account and that those who need to carry out improvement measures to improve water quality are incentivised to do so matters to us all. That is why, when the Conservatives were in Government, we took action. The narrative that has been put across by many hon. Members in their contributions to this debate, that the last Conservative Government did nothing, is for the birds. We brought in the Environment Act in 2021; we introduced a plan for water that was about more investment, stronger regulation, and tougher enforcement. Of course, it is vital to understand where the problem lies, which is why we increased monitoring. Back in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. We are now at 100%. We have also seen designated bathing water sites improve their water quality status from 2010, when only 76% of bathing water sites were classified as good or excellent. We are now at 90%, despite stronger regulation having been brought out in 2015. We introduced the ban on water company bosses’ bonuses. We linked dividend payments to environmental performance. We removed the cap on civil penalties from £250,000 per incident to an unlimited amount. We also brought forward the largest infrastructure programme, with £60 billion allocated to revamp ageing assets and reduce the number of sewage spills, allocated funds specifically for our farmers to store more water on their land through water management grants and rolled out the slurry infrastructure grant.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership campaign group has long been advocating, as have I, for a new rail link between Skipton and Colne, because it will bring huge benefits to the likes of Keighley, for both freight and passengers. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this long ongoing campaign that I have been advocating for?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent of mine, Maria Culley, has long been campaigning for a comprehensive regulatory framework for nannies, such as mandatory background checks, standardised training, ongoing professional development and the inclusion of other standards, all to ensure that every nanny in the UK is held to a high standard, while protecting families with the security of knowing that their children are safe and in capable hands. I have been asking for a meeting with the children and families Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby)—for some time. Could the Leader of the House push that meeting along, so that I and my constituent Maria can meet the Minister to discuss this campaign?