Robbie Moore MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In the Worth valley, we are on the cusp of getting our household waste and recycling centre reopened at Sugden End. The wait has caused huge concern, an increase in fly-tipping, and long waits at Royd Ings Avenue in Keighley. But we are yet to hear anything about another household waste and recycling centre that was also closed under Labour-run Bradford council in 2024, and we are still waiting for a solution in Ilkley. Could we have a debate about the importance of household waste and recycling, and taxpayers getting a decent service from their local authority?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Building Homes and Renewing Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Silsden in my constituency is being inundated by a huge number of housing developments. In the last few years, we have had seven different housing developers all building houses, with no focus whatsoever on improving infrastructure or services. It is getting to the stage that Silsden cannot cope. It gets worse than that, because the section 106 money that is collected, which Bradford council negotiated with the housing developer under the last Labour administration, is not being spent on mitigating the negative implications of the housing developments, and the council has no local plan in place. We are seeing a lot of speculative development coming down the line, and it is simply not good enough. I have to say to the Secretary of State that this was all overseen by the last Labour administration at Bradford council. What in today’s announcement from the Secretary of State will deliver something positive for my constituents, and something that addresses the key issue of infrastructure and service improvement when house building does happen?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank her for the considerable work that she has done to examine how aluminium is collected, recycled and ultimately reprocessed across the country. We know that this is a significant issue. In 2024, 287,000 tonnes of aluminium waste was generated in the UK, of which only 54.7% was recycled. Across its different uses, the aluminium industry contributes an estimated £9.4 billion to the UK economy, supporting sectors all the way from packaging to car manufacturing, energy infrastructure and defence. Of course, the Government have rightly recognised aluminium as a critical material. Aluminium, as has been referenced, is one of the most valuable materials in the household recycling stream, and it is therefore vital that councils have a clear understanding of what they are collecting, what the material is worth and what happens to it when it leaves their possession. If neighbouring local authorities are receiving dramatically different returns from comparable aluminium material, as has been rightly pointed out by the hon. Member and others, why is that the case? It would be very interesting to know whether DEFRA and the Minister are looking at the scale of those differences nationally, as such disparities have been raised throughout the debate. This is also a matter of public confidence. Residents are repeatedly encouraged to recycle—and rightly so—but they believe that what they are doing is having a positive impact on the environment. Surely they are also entitled to know what happens in the recycling process itself. If a council cannot say confidently where the aluminium ultimately goes, how can residents do so? How can elected councillors scrutinise what taxpayers are receiving and whether it is value for money? I hope the Minister agrees that greater transparency is needed throughout the whole system, and I would like to understand what steps the Government are taking to ensure that councils have the information and expertise they need to properly scrutinise the process and ultimately make the right decisions. That leads me on to the second major issue that has been raised in the debate, which is the sheer amount of valuable aluminium scrap that is leaving the United Kingdom. The figures are striking: the UK currently exports almost half the aluminium scrap that it produces, and at the same time, the UK spends around £5 billion importing aluminium. Make UK has warned that the rate of export risks affecting future industrial resilience, and estimates that the domestic aluminium scrap sector may need to grow by around 25% every year to meet the anticipated demand from British industry. To be clear, the Conservatives strongly believe in free trade. Aluminium scrap is traded internationally, and it would be wrong to suggest that every ton of exported scrap represents a policy failure. However, the Government should not ignore the wider strategic consequences when increasingly large quantities of a material that they have designated as critical are leaving the country when demand from British industry is expected to rise. The Government have designated aluminium as critical because it is essential to defence, energy, car manufacturing and other key industries, so it is surely reasonable to ask whether we are retaining enough of our own secondary aluminium to meet our growing requirements. We have British businesses investing in recycling infrastructure right here. British industries are demanding more aluminium, but councils are exporting large quantities of that material abroad. That cannot be right, so I ask the Minister what proportion of exported aluminium could be processed in this country. What assessment have the Government made of the implications of scrap aluminium exports for British industry and manufacturing, and what conversations is DEFRA having with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure our recycling policy and our industrial strategy are pulling in the same direction? That brings me to the extended producer responsibility and packaging. There is huge concern that the sheer cost of Labour’s implementation of these measures is having a detrimental impact. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that EPR will raise around £1.6 billion a year on average over the first five years, but it also recognises DEFRA’s estimation, based on its own information, that EPR is not likely to have a material impact on recycling rates or packaging waste volumes over that period. If businesses are being charged that much, and the cost of those measures is ultimately being passed on to consumers through higher prices, Ministers must be able to show how they are ultimately improving recycling rates in this country. I therefore ask the Minister how much more recycling of aluminium EPR will actually deliver, and how much of that funding will result in better local authority recycling services and decision making. We cannot end up with a system where businesses, consumers and families pay more, but recycling rates ultimately do not move at all. It is vital for the success of EPR that these measures are open and transparent. In aluminium, Britain has an extraordinarily valuable and useful material. It can be recycled time and time again and supports industries that are worth billions of pounds to our economy. The Government themselves have designated it as critical, yet we are still exporting almost half of the aluminium scrap we generate. Local authorities do not always know where the material they collect goes, or where it ultimately ends up. Some appear to be securing dramatically better returns for their aluminium than others, while at the same time, British recycling businesses are investing in capacity and British manufacturers are increasingly needing the very aluminium that those local authorities are allowing to leave this country. That should concern Ministers. The previous Government implemented much of the framework that is in place; the challenge for the current Government is to ensure that that framework works effectively. If businesses are being asked to meet enormous costs through EPR, they must see better recycling rates as a result. If councils are collecting valuable material, taxpayers deserve to know where it goes and whether they are receiving proper value for it, and if aluminium is genuinely a critical resource, Government policy should reflect that reality. We need a system that recycles more; uses that recycled material at home, not necessarily abroad; gives councils better value for money; protects businesses and consumers alike from unnecessary costs; and strengthens British industry. Ministers now need to show that they are capable of meeting that challenge.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking West Yorkshire fire and rescue for its continued efforts to tackle the wildfire that is currently on Silsden moor? At the height of the incident, 12 fire engines were in attendance. As the risk of wildfires on moorlands increases, may we have a debate in Government time about the Government’s decision to ignore the advice from the National Fire Chiefs Council, scientists and conservationists and to ban the controlled rotational burning of heather, which is resulting in more uncontrolled wildfires, peat degradation and severe impacts on biodiversity?

• 13 Jul 2026 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I am sure that no one in this House disputes the importance of protecting our climate or restoring nature; the real question is whether this Government are capable of delivering both. The Minister speaks about climate and nature as priorities, yet the Government have repeatedly chosen to target the very individuals tasked with delivering: our farmers, who are the frontline custodians of our natural world. Let us have a look at the choices this Government have already made in the past two years, which are in direct contradiction to the ambitions the Minister has set out. First, part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 was rightly heavily criticised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which warned that the legislation would “rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall.” The Wildlife Trust directly challenged this Government’s growth-at-all-costs rhetoric, stating: “Before the General Election Labour promised to restore nature”, yet the Government are instead driving environmental regression. Both organisations took the extraordinary step of demanding that part 3 be completely removed, as did the Opposition. Secondly, last September the Minister pushed through a blanket ban on the controlled burning of heather on deep peat. In doing so, the Government completely ignored the warnings of the National Fire Chiefs Council, the National Farmers’ Union and many environmental scientists who understood, quite rightly, that by blocking land managers from conducting traditional, heavily regulated rotational burnings, this Government are letting massive fuel loads build up across our moorland, effectively creating a tinderbox and vastly increasing the risk of devastating wildfires that destroy the very peatlands and biodiversity that this Government claim they want to protect. Thirdly, the Government have completely undermined the sustainable farming incentive. With only £240 million allocated to this year’s applications, the Government have, in effect, made the whole scheme competitive entry. To make matters worse, by capping agreements at £100,000, they are actively pushing the most ambitious, large-scale nature restoration projects in the country out of the window. We cannot achieve a massive 30 by 30 target by cutting funding, reducing green options and telling farmers that large-scale conservation efforts are no longer welcome. Fourthly, as a result of this Government’s choice to remove the onshore wind farm moratorium, we are now in the ridiculous scenario of applications coming forward to build large-scale wind farms on protected peatland, such as the proposal for the Calderdale wind farm in West Yorkshire, despite warnings from academics and groups like the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust that, if approved, these projects will release massive amounts of CO 2 into the atmosphere. The list goes on. Today’s statement offers no new protections, relying instead on a fragmented, reactive approach that tries to hit targets, rather than redefining how we count and reference land and actually doing anything positive about it. The choices that this Government have made in the past two years do not represent a road map to nature recovery. Before coming forward with today’s statement, what consideration did the Government make of the impacts of their choices over the past two years on the targets set out in this plan? Does the Minister agree that those policies are in direct contradiction with the delivery ambitions that this Government have brought to the House today?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In a moment or two, I will read out some descriptions of the feelings, and the frustrations, of the many victims and survivors who are hugely anxious and fearful that their perpetrators will be released early, because the sentences that are being given to those perpetrators are nowhere near long enough. Many of those victims and survivors are having to see sentences served concurrently, which is exactly what happened in the case of perpetrators of gang rape in my constituency decades ago. I had to challenge the Attorney General to call in those cases under the undue leniency scheme so that the sentences could be longer. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that the sentence should be life. Those who carry out these heinous crimes should not face weak sentences of up to six or eight years—sometimes much less than that. The fact that victims and survivors receive a standardised letter—it is not personalised at all—that makes them fearful that their perpetrators may be released on to the streets early brings shame on this Government. I have read those letters. The first paragraph says: “These changes have been introduced with the aim of improving the effectiveness of sentencing and better managing offenders in the community.” What absolute cold-heartedness! It is an outrage that the Government are releasing that narrative to victims and survivors. Who on earth signed off the letters that have gone out to survivors who are deeply worried about those perpetrators? I will take some time to read out to the House how some of those victims and survivors are feeling. I was lucky enough to meet those who are up in the Gallery earlier today. I put on the record my admiration for both Amy Clowrey and David Greenwood from Switalskis, who have worked for decades with victims and survivors from Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and across the wider Bradford district, to ensure justice is delivered. Sarah Wilson was just 11 years old when her exploitation began in Rotherham. She was a little girl forced to undergo a virginity test, and her innocence was stolen from her on the same day. For years she was raped and trafficked up and down the country by countless men. For 11 years she fought long and hard for the little girl she once was, and over two years she endured three criminal trials under Operation Stovewood. Those trials have now resulted in 125 years of justice against seven men. But how does that make Sarah feel? She says: “I feel that all my hard work fighting for that little girl I used to be has been thrown back in my face like it was all for nothing. It seems like they have had a huge slap on the wrist and are allowed back out to reoffend. I’m scared that in a couple of years I could potentially see some of my perpetrators back on the same streets they abused me on. I’m scared of the repercussions. These are some of the most dangerous to walk our streets.” Those are Sarah’s words after receiving one of these letters. I will continue to read this out, because it is important that the Minister, the Government and the Justice Secretary understand the anxiety that this has caused. Erin—not her real name—was exposed to child exploitation in the Kirklees area between the ages of 12 and 21. She was subjected to abuse by older Asian—Pakistani—men, many of whom were notorious criminals involved in drugs. A number of the perpetrators are now serving lengthy sentences after Erin assisted the police in recent operations. How does receiving one of these letters from the Government make her feel? She says: “I am writing in devastation and fear regarding the Government’s plan for the early release of prisoners. I am a survivor of severe, long-term abuse. I spent years of my life bravely fighting through the legal system to bring the men who harmed me to trial. The justice system had already failed me by giving them prison sentences that were shorter than the time I spent fighting them in court. Before that, the systems that were meant to protect me, including social services and the police, failed me too. Now I feel as though I am being punished and terrified all over again. Hearing that the men who abused me may be released early has completely broken my sense of safety. My family and I still receive threats from these men and their families to this day.” Early release would be a disaster for her, and I hope the Minister will respond to each and every one of the points I read out. The name Fiona Goddard is very familiar to this House. She first contacted me when I was elected back in December 2019, in the hope she might find someone willing to fight her corner. I have huge admiration for Fiona. At the age of 13, she was taken into care by Bradford council. She was initially placed at Edgefield children’s home, where she was first exposed to child sexual exploitation. She continued to go missing on a regular basis. Fiona fell victim to a campaign—a campaign—of rape and sexual assault over five years. She believes that up to 100 men were involved. Following a criminal trial in 2019, under Operation Dalesway, nine men were convicted of crimes relating to sexual exploitation. How does Fiona feel as a result of receiving this letter about how, under this Government, the perpetrators could be released early? She says: “Since finding out that some of my abusers may be released from prison, my mental and physical health has deteriorated significantly. I no longer feel able to keep myself and my family safe. I have been trying to raise money so that I can move out of the area, because the thought of them being back on the streets… is terrifying. I always knew that these men would be released one day, but I believed I had more time to rebuild my life and prepare myself for that reality”, after those convictions. She went on: “Finding out that they may be released early has completely set me back. I have barely left the house. I feel constantly anxious, frightened and unsafe. I can barely sleep, and when I do, I do not feel rested. This news has affected me so deeply that my physical health has also suffered, resulting in hospital admissions.” That is the result of this letter from the Government. Who, I ask the Minister, signed off these letters? Jessica was exposed to child sexual abuse from the age of 12 in Batley, Dewsbury. She was sexually abused by over 50 men in this period. Between the ages of 12 and 16, Jessica was introduced to other men by a girl known to the police, who was older than her. In 2022, as part of Operation Tourway, her perpetrators were finally convicted. How did it make Jessica feel to receive one of these letters from the Government? She said: “It’s made me feel worthless all over again and like my safety does not matter at all. These people are going to be released back into the town and community where I live. For my safety I think I will have to move.” She had always known that one day they would be released, but she did not think it would come this soon. She went on: “It’s just so unfair that they’re not even going to serve the sentence that was handed to them”. She knew that the sentences given were far too short in the first place. She says: “When I received the letter, I just started crying. I am now only two years out of court and my case took eight years to get to court. They might not even serve eight years”, as a result of the reassessment by the Government. She just cannot believe that two years after going to court, she now has to go through the trauma of the perpetrators being released early, which she says is “soul-crushing”. Carly was 12 when she became involved with a group of Asian men who sexually abused and exploited her. Her abuse continued throughout 2004 to 2011. As part of Operation Tendersea, Carly gave evidence at the trial in late 2018 that secured convictions against three of the men. As a result of receiving one of these letters, she says: “I am extremely disappointed…that my perpetrators and abusers will only be serving 33% of their sentences, so they are going to be released as early as September. It is just another kick in the teeth.” She feels incredibly disappointed that what little justice they had been given has been taken away. She says: “We cannot let people who have abused children for years and decades onto the streets. How is it safe? It is not safe for our children, and it’s not safe for the next generation of children. You are just releasing them back onto the streets for them to commit further offences, with a probation system that is fully broken.” There are three more quotes that I will read out, and I will not apologise for doing so, because these girls have faced the most horrendous crimes. Jade was the victim of rape aged 14, and waived anonymity to describe the Government’s early release scheme as “an absolute disgrace” that put women and children at risk from scores of rapists and sex offenders freed prematurely. She said that the two rapes left her with a “life sentence”, while the rapist who groomed her will just get a slap on the wrist. Recalling the moment that she read and digested the content of the letter, she said: “I felt sick, to be honest. I felt like my rapist was being protected again”— protected by the state— “It’s an absolute disgrace they can make victims feel back to being unheard and vulnerable. The fear all comes back because you know they’re going to be out so much sooner than you had in your head originally.” Other than murder, Jade thinks that these are some of the worst crimes that should get the most severe sentences. She continues: “It’s put such a fire in my belly because it scares me so much that so many predators and paedophiles are getting out, which scares me for my children’s future because they’re just back on the street again.” That is as a result of this Government. Angela was first raped by her stepfather when she was just eight years old. She tried to tell people but was ignored by school support staff and social services. The abuse continued until she was 15, when she refused to go home from school until the police got involved. She suffers from long-term post-traumatic stress disorder and hearing loss in both ears from repeated head trauma. This was her response on receiving the letter: “It took three years for me to get justice and I was let down repeatedly by adults who should have been protecting me. My abuser was sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison of which he has only served six. The email received”— it was an email, not even a letter, that came from the Ministry of Justice— “was for all intents and purposes the government saying they do not care about the safety of women and children. I feel completely let down and made to feel like my safety and that of other victims isn’t valued. This decision is an insult to women and the children we were who had to endure such violence. We deserve justice, I deserve to have time to put my life together without fear. I should be enjoying my degree and being in my twenties, having the normal stresses of a young woman. Instead I am having to fight for myself all over again. This decision is so obviously wrong that it amazes me it was even a discussion in the first place. It undermines everything we as victims went through.” Finally, I will read a quote from Charlotte: “From the age of eight years old until I was 13, I was raped and beaten by my older brother. In February 2025, he was arrested and charged with 20 sexual offences. In June of 2025, he pleaded guilty to nine out of the 20 charges and received a sentence of five years”— just five years. “In an email breakdown of his sentence from the judge, it shows all the reductions he got to his sentence for different factors, such as his age and admitting part of what he did. At no point was there an increase for my age or my pain”— with Charlotte being so young. “His sentence went from 21 years down to 5, of which he was supposed to serve two thirds… My children are just starting to get their happy mum back after spending so long scared and broken. My life was ruined at just age 8. I spent 21 years living in fear and embarrassment and questioning why me.” She said that “5 years was not long enough and him being able to walk free after a year and a half” will be hugely detrimental to the rest of her life. Unfortunately, Charlotte now needs medication just to be able to function. These are the exact words of many of the victims and survivors who have received these letters, and there will be many, many more across the country. Why on earth will the Government not use the time remaining in this place before recess to bring forward emergency legislation to counteract the recommendations included in the Sentencing Act 2026, put a stop to this issue and reassure the many victims and survivors who are sat up in the Gallery right now and across the country that those perpetrators will not be released early?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The reality is that this should not be political—this is about the difference between right and wrong. I have never understood why those in positions of responsibility, be it at a national or local level, would stand in the way and actually try to stop justice and accountability. We have unfortunately all seen that in our own local areas. I have seen it in my own area in West Yorkshire, where, as a matter of fact, the previous leader of Bradford council blocked the attempt to get an inquiry into the Bradford district, and the Mayor of West Yorkshire did not want an inquiry to focus on West Yorkshire. They all changed their minds following the release of the Casey review in 2025 and are now advocating for complete justice and accountability to follow—quite rightly. However, the point is that people in positions of responsibility should not have to be dragged to the position of advocating the difference between right and wrong. That is why I plead with the Government and the Minister to do the right thing, which I am sure she could do right now, in summing up today’s debate: reassure the victims and survivors that the letter that was sent out was wrong, that it should not have been signed off, and that it should not have created the huge levels of anxiety, fear and concern that the victims and survivors have faced. I simply ask the Minister to do the right thing when she sums up at the Dispatch Box. That brings me back to my initial point: this is about trust. The reality is that many of us fought hard to get that national inquiry and to get the attention on to our local areas. However, if victims and survivors do not trust the state to be on their side and feel that their perpetrators are going to be released early, why on earth would they come forward and contribute to the national grooming gangs inquiry? With the statutory inquiry into group child sexual exploitation beginning imminently, it is vital that it is not undermined by victims being afraid to speak out against their abusers for fear of unduly lenient or reduced sentences or, indeed, their perpetrators being released early. The reality is that cases such as Fiona’s are a direct consequence of the decisions taken by this Government and this Justice Secretary. They cannot seriously think that the best way to manage resources is to allow dangerous rapists and abusers back on to the streets before justice is served. I have a few questions for the Minister. What is she doing to provide reassurance to those victims and survivors who have rightly raised their concerns? How is she categorising “dangerous offenders”? That question has been raised by many Members, but so far the Government have been unable to answer it. How many of these rapists, paedophiles and those who have carried out some of the most heinous crimes are going to be realised? Will the Minister confirm to Sarah, Erin, Fiona, Jessica, Carly, Jade, Angela and Charlotte, and the many other victims and survivors who have received these letters, that their perpetrators will not be released as a result of the Government sending out these ridiculous, cold-hearted letters?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  As we all contribute to this debate, we must remember who is at the heart of it: those victims and survivors who, let us be honest, have seen politicians come in and out of their life ever since those heinous crimes were first reported—since they first experienced the darkest of moments. Politicians have been trying to get to solutions, but it was only two weeks ago that we heard that the Bradford district and Keighley would finally form part of the national grooming gangs inquiry, and we are still debating the issue at the heart of this, which is the trust between victims and survivors and a state that continues to let them down. That includes national Government, of course, but also local government, and all those organisations that have safeguarding responsibilities. For decades, many of those victims and survivors have fought hard for accountability and justice, and to be heard by the state. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—IICSA—produced 22 solid recommendations, but neither the previous Government nor, to date, this Labour Government have implemented all those recommendations. I simply ask the Minister: why not? That feeds into the issue of trust.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a member. I also thank all the petitioners from across the country who kindly signed the petition which, put simply, asks whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permanently barred from standing for elected public office. That is a serious question that deserves careful consideration by Members. Before I go any further, let me be clear that it is my firm belief that we should never be in a situation where someone convicted of terrorism can stand for office in this country. I accept that we cannot always rely on the integrity of some overseas courts, but a terrorism conviction is incredibly serious and should have an impact on a person’s right to stand for and be elected to public office. There has, quite rightly, been a lot of emphasis on the specific case of Shahid Butt, who, as we have heard, stood for election to the Sparkhill ward in the May 2026 local elections for Birmingham city council. At the time, it was known that Mr Butt had previously been sentenced in Yemen to five years in prison for terrorism, after being convicted with five other UK nationals of plotting to blow up the British consulate there, among other locations. This individual should never have been permitted to stand for election and—as others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, have said—it is deeply worrying that people in the ward voted for someone who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences. This debate is incredibly important because it opens up a much wider conversation about who can and cannot stand for public office. It is right that we properly scrutinise any convictions that have been awarded by foreign courts, but surely the fact that a conviction has been awarded sparks a level of interest in an individual, so I urge the Government to consider tightening the rules. The reality is that if someone becomes elected, having previously been convicted of terrorism offences, either to this place or to a local authority, they not only represent their ward members or constituents but have access to information. Public confidence is at risk of being derailed because of that individual. What does it say about democracy in this country when an individual who has previously been convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand for election? I do not think the Government’s response to the petition is anywhere near good enough. They have responded by saying that they “currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria” for those standing for election who have been convicted of such offences, but that they keep the counter-terrorism framework “under constant review to ensure it is fit for purpose.” I say gently to the Minister that the current scenario is not fit for purpose if someone such as Mr Butt was able to stand for election in the May 2026 Birmingham city council elections. Given the level of concern expressed in the debate, what will the Government be doing to tighten up provisions to deal with what the petitioner is ultimately asking for?