Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I thank not only Robert Branch but the numerous deeply concerned constituents; I am sure we all, as Members of Parliament, have received plenty of correspondence about how tougher action must be taken on fireworks. In Riddlesden in my constituency, just before Christmas, fireworks had dramatic impacts—

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  That brings me on nicely to the next petition. Another option is for people to require the approval of their local council to hold firework displays. That would allow the council to control the number and the timing of firework displays, ensuring that they are more considerate of the whole community. In addition, it is safe to assume that no council would approve a display deemed unsafe; hopefully, requiring a permit for a fireworks display would reduce the number of firework-related injuries. In addition to the two solutions proposed by the petitions today, I make one further observation.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I will take two more interventions.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This issue is about the negative impact on animal welfare—our pets and farm animals—but also the human impacts, which I will come on to.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because a lot of this issue is about data collection. It is very easy to collect data and to demonstrate the impact of fireworks on pets and farm animals; it is much more difficult—almost impossible—to demonstrate the impact on wild animals. Even the data about pets and other kept animals is few and far between so it is less easy to demonstrate to the Government that action needs to be taken. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to consider the impact on all animals of fireworks being let off. The current legal limit for loudness of fireworks is 120 dB, which is equivalent to being at a rock concert or standing next to a police siren. By contrast, 90 dB, although still not quiet, is equivalent to a busy restaurant or a hairdryer. It is completely reasonable to suggest reducing noise levels to something more considerate—indeed, 85 dB is the threshold at which humans experience hearing damage. Reducing noise would mean that private fireworks displays could continue, but with be a reduced risk of distressing animals or inconveniencing neighbours.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little more progress and then take some more interventions. Having spoken to Helen, one of the lead petitioners, who represents the UK’s largest horse charity Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), I know how urgent these calls for change are. It is not just animals that suffer from the antisocial use of fireworks; many veterans can suffer attacks of post-traumatic stress disorder when fireworks are let off, deeply damaging their mental health. Vulnerable children and adults can also be confused and intimated by fireworks. There is nothing more frustrating for a working family than being kept up all night by a constant stream of fireworks. I am seeing that in my own constituency of Keighley.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I will, for the final intervention.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member, who I know is a vet and has expertise from the number of dealings he had in a previous life before entering this place.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  What discussions has the Minister had with Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the animal welfare strategy that has been launched? I have read that strategy, and it does not really address the issue of fireworks. Given that so many animal welfare concerns have been raised, what conversations is she having with DEFRA colleagues?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I will crack on a bit because I have two more pages, and I want to make sure that hon. Members have enough time to give their own speeches. In a distressing number of cases, emergency services are also targeted, particularly in Keighley. They come under attack by those showing antisocial behaviour, with fireworks used as weapons. Yet fireworks do not seem to get the same attention as the illegal use of knives; they get a free pass. The time for talk is over and we need action now. Both today’s petitions provide sensible ideas that would dramatically improve the situation for communities facing the inappropriate use of fireworks.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Food Inflation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate, throughout which we have heard valuable contributions from Members rightly raising concerns on behalf of their constituents. We all know that food inflation significantly impacts the cost of living by eroding household purchasing power, and that it disproportionately affects those in low-income households, leading to food insecurity. Just last November, 61% of adults in Great Britain reported an increased cost of living compared to the previous month. Much of the reason for that was linked to the inflation of food prices. I join Members across the House in thanking those who are going out of their way to support those who need it in their own constituencies, not only with advice but through operating food banks and providing comfort and support. Imogen and her team in the Salvation Army in Keighley, who I have met many a time, do fantastic work to help families not only in Keighley but across the wider Worth valley area in my constituency. I pay particular tribute to her and her team.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Food Inflation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he must have known what I was coming on to in my speech. There are many other organisations and companies that are producing excess amounts of food. We need to reduce food waste, which is ridiculously high in this country, and utilise and redistribute high-quality food through a localised logistics system or a national strategic approach. Those at both grassroots and national level need to be thanked, but much more work is needed to focus on reducing food waste to help those on lower incomes. Lower-income families spend a large proportion of their budget on food—about 14% in the UK compared to 9% for higher-income households—making those who are more vulnerable much more exposed to price spikes. We have already heard that the price of flour has increased by 19% and milk by about 46% in a relatively short period of time. As well as the vulnerability sitting with those low-income households in terms of their purchasing power, it also sits with the primary producer: the farmers and growers who are exposed to those spikes. They are not only exposed to their own vulnerability; they also lack resilience because they are entered into contracts with unfair terms and unfair adjustment mechanisms linked to supply and demand, and they have to compete against commodities and food that can be produced at much cheaper prices in places with different standards. While the end price for some food products fluctuates for the primary producer—we have seen that with lamb, beef and milk prices this year—for others they do not. For example, in the arable sector, cereal prices are linked to global commodity prices and some of those feed wheat prices have not really changed in the last 20 years. Exposing those primary producers to fluctuating prices depending on what they are producing, but not mitigating the increase in associated input costs for producing that food, directly hits food inflation prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned the vulnerability associated with farm-gate prices. Return rates for our farmers sit at about 1%, if not at all, and therefore many of our primary producers are not even breaking even. That is why the Baroness Batters farming profitability review was welcomed, although it was frustrating that the Government held that report back. They did not give the opportunity for it to be debated on the Floor of the House through an oral statement; they just relied on a written statement. I encourage the Minister to allow time for us to get to grips with debating such a significant and valuable report so that all Members can contribute towards it. A key recommendation in that report was around the supply chain, which, as I think has been acknowledged, is not fit for purpose and disadvantages primary producers. That is why we want more funding and power going to the Grocery Code Adjudicator. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) highlighted the challenges around input costs increasing for our food producers and farmers. That has not been helped by policy choices and tax choices brought forward by the Labour Government in the last 18 months. Let us look at the rise in labour costs: the Bank of England says that the increasing costs associated with labour through the rise in employer national insurance, coupled with the rise in the national minimum wage from £11.44 to £12.21 an hour—a rise of about 6.7%—has dramatically impacted not only the horticultural sector, but many of those food-producing businesses and large employers. In April, employer national insurance rose from 13.8% to 15%, while the threshold has significantly reduced, falling from £9,100 to £5,000 per employee annually. That disproportionately affects companies who employ lower-paid, younger and part-time workers, many of whom are employed in the horticultural industry and the food-producing sector. That is, of course, combined with uncertainty around levels of investment. We have seen the changes to inheritance tax come through, and that is holding back a level of investment: many of those involved in the food supply chain want to invest, but are holding back due to uncertainty about being able to mitigate the inheritance tax changes coming down the line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent picked up on, we have also seen new regulation, particularly for the dairy industry, and the hurdles that those sectors need to jump through simply to get their food product on the table. New regulation is having inflationary challenges: the un-Employment Rights Bill worked its way through the House and led to stagnation in business decisions, with investment held back from moving into automation. I am being contacted, as I am sure other Members are, by many employers who are not willing to risk employing people because of the challenges associated with the Employment Rights Act. I dare say many of those are young people and those with special educational needs or learning challenges, who want to get their first step on the employment ladder, but many of those businesses are holding back, which is leading to inflationary challenges. There is also the extended producer responsibility tax, which has been recognised by not only the British Retail Consortium but the Food and Drink Federation as creating an inflationary challenge for our food sector, estimated to be about £1.4 billion, which will be passed on to consumers by those supermarkets. The British Retail Consortium believes that 80% of those EPR costs will be passed on to consumers, which will lead to higher food prices. Then there are the increasing energy prices; the funding being taken away from our primary producers—our farmers—such as delinked payments dramatically reducing in a short period of time to £600 as an annual payment, where just two years ago they would have been receiving much more; and challenges with the fertiliser tax and sustainable farming incentive. That just adds to the inflationary challenges associate with food prices, which are predominantly hitting those on the lowest incomes. I ask the Minister not only what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be doing, but what conversations they will be having with the wider Government Departments. It is fine to have a food security strategy, but if that does not sit at the heart of Government, it is for the birds. The reality is that, if it sits under a Secretary of State who has responsibility for food but is not bought into by the likes of the Chancellor and those who are making fiscal adjustments, it will not have the positive impact that it needs to; we have seen that from the last two Budgets that have come out of this Labour Government. I also want to understand from the Minister what recommendations she and her Department will be taking forward at speed—not only the few announced by Baroness Batters’ profitability review, but that specifically address food inflation challenges, give fairer reassurance to our farmers that farm-gate prices will increase and they will get what they deserve for the primary product they are producing and, ultimately, help those on the lowest incomes across all our constituencies with the cost of living.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In Ilkley, Labour-run Bradford council is shockingly set to remove the town’s free one hour of on-street parking, despite over 4,000 residents objecting to the proposals. That follows a local referendum in the town, in which 90% of residents rejected a blanket 20 mile per hour zone and speed humps, only for the results of that poll to be ignored by the Labour mayor, who used his casting vote to push the vote through and, outrageously, said to residents that they should save their votes for “Strictly”, then went on to bill taxpayers £190,000 for the privilege. Ministers often say that decisions are for local leaders, but what happens when local leaders are outright ignoring the views of the public? Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the role of central Government in areas where local democracy is clearly failing?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  We know that the Prime Minister was warned many times that voters would not believe the claim that introducing mandatory digital ID was about stopping illegal immigration, but he decided to push on regardless. Does the Minister think it was credible to argue that 67 million people—law-abiding citizens who already have passports, national insurance numbers and driving licences—should be placed into a brand-new compulsory database to stop illegal immigration, or does he accept that this is just another example of the Prime Minister treating the public as fools?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Northern Powerhouse Rail · Hansard source

  More

  I have spent years fighting to ensure that Bradford is at the heart of the north’s rail network, so I very much welcome today’s announcement. However, after decades of empty promises for the north from Whitehall, my constituents also need clarity. We have seen 13 U-turns in 18 months from this Government, including on the West Yorkshire tram network, so how much will be spent specifically on the Bradford station project, and when will that project be completed? With at least four general elections between now and 2045, which is the period of time that this statement relates to, my constituents and I are worried that this is simply another future U-turn.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 86 and new clause 26, tabled in the name of the official Opposition, which requires the Government to carry out a review of the impact of the increased level of alcohol duty on our pubs and hospitality sector. All these measures will have a cumulative impact on our hospitality and pub sector, because this comes on the back of the huge amount of tax revenue that will be raised from the last Budget—£26 billion-worth, or £64 billion-worth if we take into account the last two Budgets. Alcohol duty alone will bring in an additional £400 million a year—a raid on our pints, spirits and glasses of wine. Alcohol duty is set to rise by an inflation-busting 3.66% at the start of February, equating to a 2p increase on the price of a pint in a pub. When I am out in my constituency speaking to the landlords of the Dog and Gun in the Worth valley, the Craven Heifer in Addingham, the Airedale Heifer in Keighley or the Black Hat in Ilkley, they all talk to me about the cumulative impact of not only the alcohol duty increase but rising employer’s national insurance, soaring energy costs, increasing minimum wages, the business rate relief reduction not being at the level that was initially indicated and, of course, the tourism tax that is coming down the line. The tourism tax will impact areas like Haworth in the Worth valley and Ilkley in my constituency, where a tax will be collected and go into a generalised pot to be redistributed by the Mayor of West Yorkshire, but I suspect it will not go back into places like Ilkley or Haworth, which are effectively being used as cash cows for the rest of West Yorkshire. These are all detrimental impacts over and above the alcohol duty. At a local level, on-street parking charges in Ilkley are set to increase at the end of this month. All these things are making it much more difficult for places like the Flying Duck and the Black Hat in Ilkley, where people like to go and enjoy a drink. Disposable income is getting less in my constituency. Labour-run Bradford council has increased council tax by 14.99% in the last two years. People have less money in their pockets, and then we have a Labour Government hitting our pubs and hospitality sector, and boy do they feel it.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On practicalities, I would be interested to understand whether the Minister or the Treasury has done any analysis of the impact on the district valuer. There is a real challenge in that when a farm is valued, that value will be disputed by either the Treasury or the agent acting on behalf of the landowner with that tax liability. Secondly, if we look at two farms in different parts of the country, we see that values vary dramatically. What consideration does my hon. Friend think the Treasury has given to how tax liability varies based on the value of 200 acres of land in one part of the country and 200 acres valued at a higher rate, such as in Northern Ireland? Practicalities matter.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to clause 62, schedule 12 and the amendments to them tabled by the Conservative Front Benchers. Throughout debate on the Finance Bill, we have heard about the changes to inheritance tax, predominantly in relation to the agricultural and business property reliefs. My comments refer not only to the many family farming businesses affected by the Government’s changes, but to many other family businesses, be they hospitality or manufacturing businesses, including in my Keighley constituency. They are all affected by the direction that the Labour Government are taking. The changes that the Government have brought to the Committee do not get rid of the cliff edge associated with the measure kicking in a few months from now in April. Changing the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million does not remove that cliff edge for a family business that has an IHT liability kicking in. I would like the Minister to explain further why the Government are not addressing that stark cliff edge, even though Members from all Opposition parties have reiterated that problem to the Government over the past 14 months. The second matter I will raise is the absolutely bizarre and bonkers scenario that we find ourselves in. Two estates valued at £5 million could be subject to different tax liabilities depending on the ownership structure. How bizarre is it that we now find ourselves in a scenario in which an estate valued at over and above £2.5 million and owned by a single person could be subject to an IHT liability of 20%, but a farm valued at £5 million and owned by a married couple is subject to no IHT liability at all? I would like further explanation from the Minister on that specific point. Of course, values vary dramatically across the country. In Northern Ireland, where most farmland assets are given very high valuations, farms of 200 acres, say, could be valued significantly more or less in different parts of the country, so they would be subject to different tax liabilities if they surpassed the £2.5 million and £5 million thresholds, depending on their ownership structures. Let us not forget that, for arable farmers, feed wheat prices have not changed dramatically over the past 20 years—they still average about the same—but input prices are going up, no thanks to this Government’s raising of employer national insurance contributions and imposition of the fertiliser tax. In reality, the productivity and return rate for a farming business, if it breaks even at all, is about 1%. Those with asset base that is valued significantly higher will be subject to a higher tax liability, and they will have to sell off more assets to pay the same amount, despite their level of return being 1%, if that. That is different from a farm that has been valued at a much lower rate. Will the Minister explain what level of detail the Government have gone into to explore such challenges that are facing many farming businesses?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the Minister will answer my question, which I have asked twice in this debate, about indexation and the scenario in which two estates valued at £5 million are subject to different IHT liabilities depending on their ownership structures. Given that this issue is so important, not only to our farming community but to family businesses more broadly, why on earth did the Chancellor not announce this change at the Budget? It seems very peculiar to make a big fiscal change outside of a Budget announcement.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has mentioned, I think two or three times, that it will be possible for the ultra-wealthy to be exposed to the inheritance tax liability. However, having a huge asset base that may be worth a great deal of money does not mean having a good income. A business could have a cash flow that is not generating any revenue to keep that business going. Is she classifying businesses and farming families in her constituency who might have an asset base of over £1 million as very wealthy people?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain how we ended up in the bizarre scenario in which two estates—I use the term “estates”, because they need not necessarily be farming businesses; they could be any kind of family business estate—valued at £5 million could generate different amounts of tax for the Treasury, depending on the ownership structure? Secondly, can he explain, because I cannot see this in the amendments that have been tabled, why there is no indexation link to any increase? Obviously, land values will increase over time. Thirdly, when he was last at the Dispatch Box, he said that interest would not be charged, so can he clarify whether, when inheritance tax liability is triggered, interest is or is not triggered in that 10-year period?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member acknowledge that, in the history of petitions debates, the two most highly subscribed debates have been on petitions asking for a general election in this Parliament? Does he acknowledge that the fact that both those petitions were signed by more than a million people illustrates huge frustration at the Government and that people want them to change course?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the Prime Minister saying that “not a penny more on your council tax” would be implemented by this Labour Government, yet constituents in the Worth valley, across Keighley and Ilkley, have experienced a rise of 14.99% in the past two years under Labour-run Bradford council. Does my hon. Friend feel that that meets the Prime Minister’s promise?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I have to confess that I am not aligned with the detail of that case, but what I do know is that the hon. Gentleman, who represents York Outer—a very rural constituency—and I believe sits on one of the key all-party parliamentary groups for food security, was one of those Labour MPs who voted against the inheritance tax changes that the Conservatives advocated. I am sure the hard-working farmers and family businesses in his constituency will feel a huge amount of frustration that he did not stand with them. Then there is our pub industry. The huge rises in business rates and employer national insurance contributions are hitting many of those hard-working businesses within the hospitality sector and the pub industry. No wonder it is very difficult for a Labour MP to get a pint in a pub, many of which they have been quite rightly asked not to return to. Of course, the rise in employer national insurance contributions is hitting all businesses. I have had many conversations with our hard-working teachers and headteachers, who regularly tell me about the tough choices they face about making teaching assistants redundant because of the rise in employer national insurance contributions. The grant that comes out of central Government to cover the rise covers only about 70% of the increase in costs, so the additional 30% must be covered by the existing school budget. There are also the free school meals and breakfast clubs—but who is paying for them? The schools are, out of their existing budgets. Labour MPs want to roll out the narrative that our constituents are going to receive all these benefits, and of course we want to see those benefits happen, but they must get to grips with the facts of the case. Hard-working hospices now cannot provide end-of-life care and schools cannot roll out education because they are having to make tough choices around paying increased levels of employer national insurance contributions. That betrayal was not in the manifesto.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  That is just not what people in Keighley and Ilkley and across the Worth valley are feeling. Why are the Labour Government increasing the amount of tax that a basic rate taxpayer is paying by another £220 this year? Why is it that Labour-run Bradford council has tried to increase council tax by 14.99% this year? On top of that, the Government are making decisions that were not in their manifesto, such as rolling out digital ID at a cost of £1.8 billon or the £47 billion Chagos deal. Those are things that the Government are doing beyond their manifesto promises, but which they are taxing hard-working people across Keighley for.