Robbie Moore MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship., Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this really important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed and made incredibly valid points, which I will pick up on in my summing up of this debate. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are pleased that the River Tone in French Weir has been awarded its bathing water designation. I was the Minister who signed that off when I was in the Department, so I am pleased that that has been welcomed. I also want to thank his predecessor Rebecca Pow for the work that she did in campaigning vociferously to get that bathing water designation in place. In 2010, 76% of bathing sites were considered good or excellent and by 2024 that figure had reached 90%, which I am sure all of us would welcome. That is despite the criteria changing and becoming much stricter in 2015. And I was proud, as I have indicated, when I was the Water Minister for a brief period in DEFRA to sign off an additional 27 bathing water designations last year, bringing more areas under the spotlight with additional monitoring and ensuring more water companies were then able to be held to account for the pollution that they were causing. It brought the total number of bathing water designations up to 451 sites for the 2024 bathing season. I was proud to see that the River Nidd in Harrogate was one of the rivers awarded bathing water designation and that there was an additional such designation on the River Wharfe. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, the Wharfe was the first to have a bathing water designation on a river. I must congratulate a very active campaign group in my constituency, the Ilkley Clean River group. It was founded by Karen Shackleton, who is an incredible campaigner. She and many others have tirelessly campaigned for improving water quality, not only in the River Wharfe but across the country. I am sure many Members have received emails from this campaign group. When we announced those 27 bathing water sites to be added to the list, I was also proud to announce the review of such designations. From my experience with having the River Wharfe designated, I felt the bathing water designation regulations at the time were not fit for purpose. I am pleased the Government carried on with that review, which has now taken place. I have seen many contributions to it, not least from the Office for Environmental Protection which in their feedback of November 2024 was supportive of many of the changes that needed to take place. I shall go through some of those. On dates, for example, I do not feel that it is just to have bathing water designation sites ringfenced only between May and September. As has been mentioned by all Members in their contributions, many of us who are lucky to use a bathing water site are not just doing so between those specific dates but actually throughout the year. Why should we be constrained by having the bathing water designation sites between May and September? It seems right and just that those sites have all-year monitoring, to be able to hold to account those who pollute our rivers but also to make sure the level of resource, whether financial or community, is able to improve the water quality in those areas. That brings me on to the name “bathing water regulations”. Is it fit for purpose? From my experience in my constituency, once a bathing water designation is approved the assumption is that it is safe to bathe in that area. When bathing water sites are being allocated to rivers, or indeed on our coastal environments, it can be unsafe to swim in those environments given the undercurrents that exist, particularly in river networks. The water quality does not need to be good or excellent. In fact, many of those sites are unfortunately designated as poor. I urge the Government to think about whether it should be changed to something like “clean water status”, so as not to give the impression that it is necessarily safe to bathe. I would also like to pick up the point on automatic de-designation. This is something I have experienced in my own constituency. We were lucky enough to have the River Wharfe bathing water designated but unfortunately, as probably expected, it has consistently been designated as poor as a river—year on and year on. Fortunately, Yorkshire Water has responded very positively in realising that an additional level of investment needs to go in there. We have seen £15 million spent on improving water capacity and retention, to help with the sewage treatment works in Ilkley. We have now seen an additional allocation of about £45 million being spent in Ilkley to deal with the wider sewage treatment works. However if one knows the designation is consistently going to be poor, and then after year five drops off and there is no bathing water designation, I fear there is a real risk it reduces the onus on the polluter to do something about this. The polluter may not just be a water company. It may be agri-runoff through phosphorous or nitrate. I know that the civil servants sitting behind the Minister will have listened to many of the conversations that we have been having, and, on that point, I congratulate the civil service on the work that it has done on the regulations and in bringing forward this review. However, I do feel that, when we are relying on evidence coming forward to secure enough resource or finance to improve things, we sometimes need to rely on longer datasets than just one or two years to see those improvement measures. That relates not only to water companies but the agri-environmental benefit from many of the stewardship schemes that farmers enter into as well. I therefore urge the Government to remove the automatic de-designation. Then I come on to users, because, at the moment, the regulations specifically relate to those who wish to bathe, but, as has also been indicated by those who have contributed today, we are all using our river networks, our coastal environments, or indeed our lakes for many purposes other than swimming. I do not want to comment on the Lib Dem leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but I am not the only one who goes paddleboarding and ends up underwater. The point is that, under the current regulations, if someone wants to kayak, canoe or paddleboard, that is not sufficient to get a bathing water designation. I therefore urge the Government to look at the users of these sites so that we can ensure that more rivers, coasts and lakes achieve more bathing water status. On the issue of multiple measuring points, from my own experience from the River Wharfe in Ilkley, a bathing water designation relates to a specific point where that monitoring takes place. In my constituency, that specific point is actually upstream of the outfall from the water treatment works—which Yorkshire Water is rightly putting a huge amount of investment into. That monitoring is pointless if it is upstream. That may be at the point where most bathers bathe, but it is less likely to put pressure on ensuring that polluters are held to account. I therefore urge the Government to look at having multiple measuring points associated with a bathing water designation. Indeed, as we see more rivers getting allocated bathing water sites—and I was proud to sign off more rivers when I was lucky enough to be the water Minister—I do wish the Government would explore having multiple measuring points, particularly in river environments, because, as the river flows through, bathers are more likely to bathe over a wider stretch, rather than at a single point, as with coastal environments. I am grateful to Surfers Against Sewage for specifically raising the issue of prior testing with me in advance of today’s debate—indeed, as they have before—because proposals under consideration, including those of sites to be designated going forward, could be tested before the designation is granted. Should those prior tests come back as poor, my worry—indeed, the point has also been raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—is that that could allow a Minister not to grant, or to be less inclined to grant, that bathing water designation. I would not want prior testing to result in a bathing water designation not being given approval, because actually, as I have demonstrated in my own constituency and others, having a bathing water site, in itself, puts that pressure on the polluter, whoever, or whichever organisation, that is. Forecasting has also been picked up by other Members in this debate. Forecasting is important, because it provides much more onus on future programming to do with finance that may be going into cleaning up the rivers, and enables more comfort for the community in understanding what is happening to improve the water quality at those bathing water sites. However, as we all know, even when a site is designated as excellent water quality, it could experience a huge amount of rainfall, or potentially a serious pollution incident, but, because the monitoring is taken over a wider period of time—and the designation is therefore taken over a wider period of time—a single issue to do with pollution or a heavy downpour will not necessarily impact the designation itself. Therefore, I think it would be helpful if more awareness was raised. That is about not only additional rainfall events, or additional water entering into the system, but forecasting to better prepare those who do want to bathe, or use that water, to make the right decision at the appropriate time. I would like to sum up by thanking the Ilkley Clean River Group in my constituency, because it certainly helped me to get a much better understanding, not only when I was first elected to the House in 2019 but in the role that I ended up in, which was as a Water Minister in DEFRA. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, because water quality is a major challenge. The infrastructure responsible for much of this issue is literally Victorian. It cannot be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed with a dedicated and serious plan. The previous Administration delivered the start of that plan with the “Plan for Water”, and in opposition we will very much welcome working with the Government and, indeed, other parties from across this House to improve water quality. I hope that the Minister will reiterate my thanks to her team, who I know have worked incredibly hard behind the scenes on this issue. I would like to say to the Minister that we would be more than happy to provide support in the right places to make sure that we are all focused on improving water quality.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. Crime is often perceived to be an issue confined to cities and metropolitan areas. While it is true that crime rates are often higher in these areas, it is easy to overlook the unique challenges of policing rural communities. As many Members have eloquently said in today’s debate, the reality is that rural crime is often a complex picture for the police, ranging from minor incidents of antisocial behaviour to organised criminal gangs exploiting our rural communities through machinery theft, livestock theft, fly-tipping and county lines operations—indeed, many of the issues that have been outlined today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) rightly outlined, many of the hidden challenges associated with rural crime are very complex and need the full weight of police attention. As NFU Mutual’s rural crime report indicated, the cost of rural crime has risen again this year to £52.8 million. We know that the cost is likely to be substantially higher, given how insurance policies work for those thefts. Research from the National Rural Crime Network concludes that there is an unprecedented level of organised rural crime, with its datasets illustrating the point. This has led to the network’s focus on making sure it is working collectively with all stakeholders that are willing to interact, and on making sure that all police forces are working as collaboratively as possible. It is therefore vital that the police have a full range of powers and resources to tackle rural crimes. It is also imperative that the Government work effectively with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the next rural and wildlife crime strategy reflects the priorities of our rural communities. Every Member has mentioned fly-tipping, which is an attack on our communities, nature and environment. It endangers wildlife and people alike, and the harm caused by these criminals must not go unpunished. For this reason, under the previous Conservative Administration, DEFRA grants were allocated to 58 local authorities specifically to enable them to provide additional enforcement powers. I welcome the Government’s intention to act on fly-tipping through the Crime and Policing Bill. However, it appears that all they are offering is limited statutory guidance for local authorities. I am therefore interested to hear from the Minister about the extent to which the guidance will help local authorities by further increasing the powers available to them. What will the guidance seek to achieve? Will it be accompanied by additional financial support, like that previously made available to local authorities by the previous Conservative Administration, and will it enable further enforcement action? Fly-tipping is probably one of the most prolific categories of rural crime, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned. A survey of NFU members found that 54% of respondents had experienced small-scale fly-tipping on farmland, while over a quarter—30%—said they had been hit by large-scale industrial fly-tipping. DEFRA statistics from January 2023 show that fly-tipping is estimated to cost the economy £924 million in England alone. Worryingly, instances of large commercial fly-tipping are ever-increasing, costing local authorities in the region of £13.2 million.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend makes clear, fly-tipping hits every part of our community. In Keighley and Ilkley, Bradford council recently made the decision to close two household waste and recycling centres, which has resulted in more fly-tipping not only in those parts of the rural environment that sit on the urban fringe, but sometimes in the most isolated of rural places. That is incredibly detrimental to many of our constituents. I would very much like to see, as we have previously advocated, a single reporting mechanism for fly-tipping, which would make it easier for police forces to manage the levels of reporting. This must continue to be a priority for all Governments. Hare coursing has also been mentioned, and intervention is crucial to preventing wildlife crime. I thank all those involved with the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act under the previous Conservative Administration, under which hare coursing now carries the appropriate punishments that recognise the damage it causes, with powers in place to impose custodial sentences, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. As the Sentencing Council stated in its January 2025 consultation, “The courts now have a fuller suite of sentencing powers, including new ancillary orders, to deal with hare coursing offences.” Hare coursing may seem to many like an abstract issue, but for the many Members who represent rural constituencies, the offence unfortunately continues to take place. As a result of that Act, however, incidents are being reported. It is encouraging to see that, as of this Tuesday, 16 people have been arrested for the crime, but that underscores the need for the police to ensure that offenders are properly punished. It is highly encouraging that in areas where police forces are taking part in Operation Galileo, hare coursing has decreased by 40%. As I mentioned, the Sentencing Council is consulting on updating its guidance to reflect instances of this crime. I would be grateful if the Minister could keep the House updated. Without doubt, the other big issue that has been mentioned is machinery and diesel theft. Based on data from the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, one of the most impactful crimes affecting rural communities is theft of agricultural machinery, including vehicles. Data from the NFU indicates that the theft of agricultural goods costs more than £10 million in just the last year, which is a shocking amount. I give huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, whose private Member’s Bill, now the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, received Royal Assent back in 2023. The Act provided the Government and the police with wider powers to tackle the increasing incidence of vehicle and equipment theft from farms, including of quad bikes and ATVs, focusing on prevention. As my hon. Friend has consistently indicated, there is still a need for secondary legislation. It is comforting to hear that it will potentially be laid before the House by the summer, but the Government need to pass that secondary legislation to ensure the Act includes other agricultural equipment such as power tools. Members have also mentioned livestock worrying, which involves livestock being attacked or chased by dogs that are not kept under proper control. NFU Mutual found that an estimated £2.4 million-worth of farm animals were killed by livestock worrying in 2023 alone, a rise of 30% on the previous year. Those deaths were not always because of physical attacks or injury. With the lambing season now under way, I worry that the issue will fill all our inboxes in the spring months ahead. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which is a critical piece of animal welfare legislation, was first introduced under the last Government, and it is now slowly moving back through the legislative process. It received an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024, having been reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). I ask the Government to ensure that time is allowed for the Bill to progress as quickly as possible. This much-needed legislation would provide much comfort to many of our livestock farmers, because it aims to address the growing issue of livestock worrying by enhancing protections for farmers, introducing tougher penalties for offenders and expanding police powers. It would also expand the definition of livestock, introduce unlimited fines for offenders and grant the police powers to seize suspected attacking animals and to collect the DNA evidence needed for prosecution. I reiterate the need for all our police forces to work collectively and collaboratively to deal with rural crime. Rural crime is often isolated, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk indicated, we must enable cross-border interaction and ensure that police forces like mine in West Yorkshire, which predominantly have an urban base but also remote rural fringes, focus on rural crime just as much as more rural police forces. It seems that rural crime is often a bottom priority for our local leaders and police forces. It is difficult to measure, it is often difficult to observe and it generally impacts fewer people. Rural crime can be reduced, but it requires not just investment but an understanding and prioritisation by decision-makers across all branches of local and national Government. The Opposition are determined to put the prioritisation of rural crime in focus, and I hope that the Minister will be able to match our commitment.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my constituent Philip Jackson a very happy 100th birthday. In a very varied life so far, Philip joined the Royal Army Service Corps during the second world war and was involved in the liberation of Cherbourg, but perhaps one of his most harrowing contributions during his period in service was being one of the first to enter the notorious Nazi Bergen-Belsen concentration camp when it was liberated in 1945. Can we have a debate in Government time to celebrate those from our veterans community who have gone above and beyond throughout their life in the name of peace and freedom for us all?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  In a statement released two months ago, the Government claimed that Bradford city of culture will generate £700 million of growth for the district by 2030, and that 6,500 new jobs will be created. About £40 million of taxpayers’ money has already been allocated to Bradford city of culture. Forty million pounds is, of course, the same as the financial black hole that Bradford council faces as it cuts services to children with special educational needs and sells off local assets. The Centre for Cities says that the Government have massively overstated the economic benefit that being the city of culture brings. In the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State release the impact assessment that was made to reach the £700 million figure and the job growth that they say will be created?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely wish that the Government would listen to the many concerns that are consistently raised by Family Business UK, which is doing an excellent job in the amount of data it seems to be providing to the Treasury, yet nobody in the Treasury seems to be listening. Indeed, just last week the Chancellor did not even have the courtesy to turn up to listen to many of our farming organisations. She is not even giving wider family business stakeholders the courtesy of listening to them. The point is that the associated implications of business property relief will have dire consequences for businesses that are wanting to invest and employ local people. They are now having to face the same challenges as wider farming businesses of how to pay a potential IHT liability coming down the line. They could look at disposing of a shareholding in their business, but many of them do not want to do that—why would they want to sell out to a larger corporate?—as they want to keep their family business in the wider family, or they could sell plant and machinery, which negatively impacts the productivity of their business. The Treasury is not looking at that. Those businesses are saying to me, “What is the point? Why would I want to invest not only my time but my energy in growing that business if there will be negative implications on the wider family structure and the wider people we are employing within that business?” This Budget is hostile to our family businesses and will have a hugely detrimental impact on them. Family Business UK has already said that the data it has presented to the Government shows that these changes will likely result in a gross value added loss of £9.4 billion and the potential loss of 125,000 full-time equivalent jobs during the period from April 2026 to April 2030 alone.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I am not entirely sure whether the Minister himself believes what he is reading. Has any economic impact assessment been made of the collective impact that all the Budget changes will have on many of our family businesses, including the reduction in the agricultural property and business property reliefs?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  As we all know, family businesses are the very backbone of our local economy. They are the job creators, the innovators and the entrepreneurs—those that drive the local economy and are at the heart of all our communities. They employ 14 million people and contribute £585 billion to the economy. Rightly, the Opposition are very concerned about last October’s Budget. As the shadow farming Minister, I have heard much noise that has been rightly made about the implications of the family farm tax, but I want to use the opportunity of this debate to focus specifically on the implications of business property relief. Earlier, I heard the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury at the Dispatch Box talk about the mechanisms by which the Government have calculated the impact that business property relief will have. I specifically question how he, and indeed the Treasury, arrived at those decisions. I note that that Minister is not even here to listen to the points I want to make, so I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), will specifically address them. The Treasury has calculated that the agricultural property relief and business property relief changes will bring in about £500 million, yet despite the challenges that I and others have raised with Ministers and the Treasury, no economic impact assessment has been provided as a result of those changes. I want to understand whether any specific detail has been looked at for business property relief and the wider implications that it will have on too many of our family businesses. Only last week, I met Richard Prudhoe, who runs Fibreline and employs 250 people in Keighley. He has commented that the negative implications of business property relief on his business, which is completely owned by him and his family, will be catastrophic. If something happens to him, the dire consequences of tax that will be implemented on his wider family will be catastrophic, potentially putting at risk 250 people employed in Keighley.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the excellent point that the likely revenue—albeit I challenge the Treasury’s figures—is only £500 million, yet the impact that it will have on many of our family businesses is catastrophic. That includes those in the hospitality sector, and manufacturing, engineering and tech-based businesses in my constituency. Ultimately, the Government need to listen to the concerns being raised about business property relief, because it will undermines the stability and growth of the many family businesses owned by our constituents. The Government need to rethink the policy and axe it, which is what we are calling for. The Conservatives have been very clear that not only will we reverse the changes to agricultural property relief, but we will put back 100% business property relief, providing certainty for many family businesses. Many other challenges have been brought about by the Budget. The increase in employer national insurance is impacting many family businesses, not least Hi Energy, a gym in Keighley in my constituency, which openly tells me it has calculated that its employer national insurance bill, coupled with the challenges of its business rates bill, which is likely to increase down the line, will have catastrophic consequences. Its overheads will increase, but it will not be able to increase its gym membership fees while keeping the business competitive among the many other gym organisations across Keighley. The same narrative is reiterated by all our family businesses. For family businesses, the Budget was yet another instance of the Labour Government saying one thing but doing another. They claim to be pro-growth, yet they directly tax employment. They claim to be pro-business, but they tax wealth creators and family firms. Growth cannot be magicked up out of thin air, as the Government stipulate. The Conservative party is on the side of family businesses and I am pleased to support the motion today.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This year marks the 160th anniversary of Ilkley train station, a vital transport link for my town. I am delighted to say that Steven Thornton—I met him again just last Saturday—and his wider team at the Friends Of Ilkley Rail Station are pressing ahead with developing a business case for improving interconnectivity between the train station and the buses that pick up from the adjoining street. This will improve accessibility and make the station a more inviting and user-friendly place for all. They are also trying to get toilets at Ilkley train station. Can we have a debate in Government time on how Government can support these vital projects in getting off the ground?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Local Road Condition · Hansard source

  More

  A recent freedom of information request revealed that, of identified highways spending across the Bradford district by Bradford council over the past six years, £49 million was spent within Bradford city itself, but only £4 million was spent in Keighley and my wider constituency, despite streets such as Elliott Street in Silsden being in a very poor state of repair. Will the Secretary of State write to leaders at Bradford council and remind them that highways spending needs to be spent equally across the whole Bradford district, including places such as Keighley and Ilkley, and not just within Bradford city centre?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  On the subject of broken promises, before the general election, the now Prime Minister said that there would be no increases in council tax. However, many of the 64,000 pensioners across the Bradford district who will be impacted by the winter fuel allowance will also have a 10% increase in their council tax as a result of our local Labour-run administration. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the broken promise of the winter fuel allowance that will impact pensioners, but the broken promise of increased council tax?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this important debate. As one of the sole surviving Conservatives representing a West Yorkshire seat, I agree with him that Yorkshire is very much God’s own county. This is an incredibly important debate, and I thank many of the constituents who have kindly contacted me about fuel poverty. There are specific challenges in the northern towns I represent. Not least, the housing stock is old, and most of it remains poorly insulated. There are also the increasing fuel prices that all households are experiencing. In the rural parts of my constituency, most of the houses are off-grid and therefore experience higher energy prices. In Keighley, 17.6% of residents are in fuel poverty, and many are pensioners who have been drastically impacted by this Labour Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel allowance. Across the Bradford district, 64,000 pensioners are being impacted right now, over this winter period, as a result of Labour’s choice—and it is a choice—to remove that allowance. That is not the only challenge that people in the Bradford district face. The council requested a 15% increase in council tax, although the Deputy Prime Minister signed off a 10% increase. So, this financial year, all my constituents will have to pay an extra 10% on top of everything else. Labour Members may say that that is because of 14 years of Conservative Government, but only in 2021 the council declared that it was in sound financial health. It has also chosen to waste up to £50 million of taxpayers’ money on a music venue in the centre of Bradford, Bradford Live, which is not even open yet. That money could be spent on better supporting those in fuel poverty across the Bradford district. I am not the only one calling the Government out: many people in Keighley are doing the same, including the co-ordinator of a social supermarket, the Good Food Shop, who says that the 10% increase in council tax could push more of those coming to his shop—families and individuals who are already struggling—well below the breadline and lead to a huge surge in demand for its services. People in Keighley are indicating that the council and the Government—both of which are controlled by the Labour party—should be helping those who are struggling, not wasting council tax money on city-based projects in the centre of Bradford that do not benefit my constituents in Keighley. The Salvation Army in Keighley is saying exactly the same thing. Major Imogen Stewart has also raised concerns about those in fuel poverty, linking that to the 10% increase in council tax. She said: “People are afraid to turn on their heating”, due to the increased costs they face. Those costs are also due to the winter fuel allowance being removed, which has directly impacted those in fuel poverty. The Salvation Army indicates that people are now coming to it not to use its food bank but to ask for blankets, sleeping bags and clothes to keep them warm. It is experiencing increasing referrals, and it fears that that will only get worse as time goes on. Labour Members were elected on a promise not to introduce tax rises for working people and to put their party back in the service of working people, but my constituents are not seeing that; they are seeing the exact opposite. It is about time that the Government change tack and put working people at the heart of their policies going forward.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for allowing an intervention. I raised concerns in my speech about the fact that 64,000 pensioners are struggling now to make that difficult choice between putting food on the table and heating their homes, and she has rightly acknowledged that. Does she recognise that the choice she and the Government made to remove the winter fuel allowance was wrong, when so many pensioners are in a dire state as a result of that choice?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister recognise that many landlords are not in a sound financial position themselves, and that the challenge of getting the energy performance rating of their rental properties up to C can therefore be incredibly costly and sometimes unachievable, given the old housing stock? Will she outline what support will be available to achieve the Government’s ambition of upgrading to an energy performance rating of C?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Insomnia affects many patients, including my constituents, who are being advised by their GPs to try cognitive behavioural therapy as an alternative to medication. However, digital CBT programmes are not available on the NHS, leaving many without access to drug-free treatment. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that patients have access to digital therapies, so that more people can get access to evidence-based, drug-free support?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  Some 17.6% of those who live in Keighley are in fuel poverty. Right now, Labour-run Bradford council wants to raise council tax by 10% and, with the removal of the winter fuel allowance, 64,000 pensioners across the wider Bradford district will be impacted. Does the hon. Member agree that, for the most vulnerable in our society, there needs to be more support not just with the cost of energy, but with making sure that they can keep warm during this winter period?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. It is telling that we have had strong representation in this debate not only from Northern Ireland, but from Scotland and every part of this United Kingdom. All Members have voiced their concerns that Labour’s choice to bring in the family farm tax will have catastrophic consequences not only for the hard-working families who are outside the gates of the Houses of Parliament right now, but for the wider agricultural sector. Similar comments were made to me at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, which I attended earlier this week. Machinery dealers told me that they are being impacted not only by the lack of confidence resulting from Labour’s choices to reduce inheritance tax relief, but by the consequences of employer national insurance and other pressures being put on the wider sector. As if that were not bad enough, the business owner I spoke to will, by their own calculation, face a nearly £800,000 tax liability on death as a result of the changes to business property relief. That business has been trading for over 130 years and now faces the end of the line. The impact is not just on farming family businesses, but on the wider agricultural sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said, the NFU has undertaken research that suggests that unfortunately 75% of farming businesses will be affected. Research released recently by Savills suggests that 88% of farmland will be affected. Research conducted by the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers suggests that the Government underestimate fivefold the tax impact. These are professionals in the industry, and the Government are not even willing to listen to their points.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely the point. Others outside the sector, including all our supermarkets, have come together in agreement to say how catastrophic the damage caused to the farming sector by this Labour Government will be. Indeed, the 250,000 who signed the petition launched by the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, which was presented to the Treasury a month ago, all agree with the comments that Opposition Members are making. The Labour Government have wilfully ignored the farming community, the machinery dealers, the feed merchants, the auction marts, the supermarkets, the wider agricultural sector, including accountants, bank managers and land agents, and indeed the wider public. All have voiced their concerns that the family farm tax will have a crippling impact on UK agriculture. On top of that, as I said, the Chancellor continues not to meet any stakeholders. Today, as we have seen, no DEFRA Minister has even had the decency to turn up to this debate, despite its being of incredible importance. No, the Government were not being naive. The reality is much worse. What is now clear is that this Government’s family farm tax is purposely vindictive. Indeed, I now believe that it was designed to be this way. The Government’s actual intent is to send a strong message to our farmers that they are not needed, that they do not matter and that they do not play a vital part in our national agenda. As someone who has been involved in agriculture all my life since entering this place, this is personal to me. That is why we on the Conservative Benches do value our farmers. That is why the Conservatives will axe the family farm tax and reverse the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief—no ifs, no buts. As I have said, I can only hope that the Minister is about to get to his feet to confirm, right now, today—with all of our farming community watching this debate and many others on the streets of Westminster after travelling from far afield to get here—that his Government will listen, make changes and, hopefully, axe their vindictive family farm tax. If he does not, I can tell him that Opposition Members will keep coming back, again and again, until he and his Government finally stand up for our farmers up and down this country.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I will answer this point before giving way. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart): the electorate were sold false promises in the run-up to the general election. They were specifically told that this Labour Government would not change agricultural property relief, but that is exactly what the Government have done. How will the Minister communicate with George? What will he tell George, based on the promises that were given in the run-up to the general election? I cannot believe how many times I have asked this, but will the Government commit to recording suicide statistics across the farming sector as we move closer to April 2026? If the Minister is so determined to carry on with his family farming death tax, will he at least look at changing the abruptness of the tax’s implementation, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our farming community? It cannot be right that this Government are forcing people to make those decisions. Another point that has been made is that the tax also hits our next generation, the very young people we need to power our industry forward. What does the Minister say to Gemma, the granddaughter of a lifelong farmer who has been forced to split up the family’s farm, leaving their future in doubt? What does the Minister say to the thousands of young farmers up and down the country, many of whom are outside this building right now, who are in a similar situation because of this Government’s choices? I spoke to a few of them outside, before coming into this House. The same concerns have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Then there are the tenant farmers. About a third of agricultural land is farmed by tenants. I spoke recently to Tom, a tenant farmer who stands to lose not only his livelihood but his family home, as his landlords scramble to reduce their IHT liability before April 2026. The Tenant Farmers Association is already warning of the mass renegotiation of many agricultural tenancies ahead of the family farm tax kicking in. For the tenant farmers there is no protection, because the Government did not see fit to recognise their unique situation. Will the Minister recognise the injustice to which tenants like Tom are being exposed through this Government’s choices? Will he provide protections for those with tenancies and for the whole agricultural sector? Many points have been made by Opposition Members, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), who talked about the wider implications on our food sector. Just last week, I was at the Yorkshire agricultural machinery show, where I met a tractor dealer who is also in a family business and struggling to stay afloat. Why? Because confidence is draining from the farming sector, and orders for new tractors, machinery and equipment have reduced significantly.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I say to the hon. Member that the Conservatives have been absolutely clear: we would axe the family farm tax, and we would reverse the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief, which have such huge and catastrophic implications. In my view, the Government need to go further—not tinker with thresholds, but provide proper, decent certainty to the whole agricultural community by reversing this provision, which will have catastrophic implications that they admit themselves will give the Treasury revenue of only about £500 million. In my understanding, that would keep the NHS going for about 20 hours. Given the detrimental impact that the changes will have, the Government should think about reversing this disastrous policy. For the 10th time of asking in this place, what impact assessment has the Treasury made of the effect on growth within our entire agricultural sector as a result of the autumn Budget? What about all the other negative implications—employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage increase, the de-linked payments significantly reducing, and capital grants disappearing—even before we start talking about the family farm tax? When this tax was first announced at the Budget, I thought that maybe our new Labour Government were being naive. Perhaps they did not understand the catastrophic impact their Budget would have on our farming businesses, and would soon change course. After six months, however, the Government have consistently refused to listen to the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the CAAV, Opposition Members and others who have repeatedly tried to expose the damaging impact of the tax.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very powerful point: this is about the choices that the Labour Government are imposing on many of our family farming businesses. Those families are now having to make difficult decisions about whether to look at disposing of land, plant and machinery or livestock to fit an IHT liability that may come down the line. All of that is reducing their productivity, which will have an impact not only on those family farming businesses, but on UK food production and UK food security. That is why I join all Opposition Members in calling on the Government to change course immediately. Farmers are not multimillionaires. Many struggle to break even. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) have said, the vast majority of returns for our farming businesses are less than 1%, yet in most cases the value of the land on which they sit will be severely affected by the IHT changes, because the threshold that the Government are bringing out is £1 million. When the average size of a farm in England is 200 acres, and we take into account the farmland, the cottage that might exist on the farm, the plant and machinery, the livestock and the growing crops or stocks that may be in store, the value will be significantly higher than £1 million. That is why the Government need to listen to the NFU and its statistics.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Here we are again! As we speak, thousands of farmers are once again rallying outside the gates of this building. Over the past six months, our farmers have repeatedly been told by this Labour Government that their way of life is expendable and that their hard work, their sacrifice and their future can simply be priced up and taken away. Is it any wonder that our farmers have shown up in such vast numbers again today? Make no mistake: it is not just our farmers who are outside our gates. Across the country, more than 148,000 people have signed the petition because they know, just as Opposition Members do, that the family farm tax is wrong, is vindictive and must be scrapped now. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for leading this petitions debate, but I have to say that he did a disservice to the petitioners, who put their faith in him to lead this debate, by not actually forming an opinion. He communicated strong arguments, but he did not form an opinion. He was a mere spokesman and did not use his opportunity in this debate to voice properly their concerns. What an image for our farming community to take away from this debate! Where on earth is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is sitting beside me. Where on earth is the farming Minister? He is absent. What message does it send that the Labour party has filled up its Benches but that only five Labour Members spoke, despite having the opportunity to voice their concerns in this three-hour petitions debate, and that all five of them voted against scrapping the family farm tax when we brought the motion to the House? This is probably one of the most important debates we could have on this issue, and yet once again those with responsibility for rural areas and our farmers are missing in action. There are Labour Members who have turned up but have not even contributed to the debate, despite representing large rural constituencies. Where is this Government, who claim to be on the side of rural Britain? If they had actually visited some of their farming communities, they would know just how damaging to our farming community their choice to implement the family farm tax is. They might have had some of the devastating conversations that I and many Conservative Members, including the shadow Secretary of State, have had. I would like to share some of them. Just last week, in Northamptonshire, I met George, who has worked on his farm all his life and is nearly in his 80s. Unfortunately, he is extremely ill. He knows from his diagnosis that he does not have long to live, but he is not sure whether he will live beyond 26 April. He knows that if he should pass away before 26 April, his IHT bill will be zero, but if he passes away after 26 April, the tax bill for his family will be well over £1 million—a debt that his family simply cannot sustain. Taking his own life was an option that was put forward to me. These are horrific choices and unthinkable amounts of pressure for any individual or family to be put under, never mind some of the most vulnerable people in our society.