Wind Farms: Protected Peatland

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am glad to be introducing this incredibly important debate, which I have personally secured. It is particularly timely because, right now, Brontë country—a delicate mosaic of precious peatland and an historic heritage landscape, straddling Haworth and Stanbury in the Worth valley in my constituency across to Hebden Bridge in the Calder valley—is under threat like never before. There is a proposal for a huge wind farm development, and I will spend my time in this debate stating exactly why we should oppose the disastrous scheme.

Before I begin, I put on record my thanks to the various local campaign groups that have been working tirelessly to oppose the Calderdale wind farm and get the proposals scrapped. There are too many to mention, but I particularly thank Lydia and Nick MacKinnon and Jenny Shepherd.

Today happens to be the 110-year anniversary of the birth of Charlotte Brontë, author of several books and poems, most notably Jane Eyre. The works of Charlotte and her sisters, Emily and Anne, are world famous, as is the iconic moorland that inspired many of their stories. If approved, the Calderdale wind farm would see up to 34 200-metre-high wind turbines erected across Brontë country.

This moorland is not just a site of famous literary heritage; it is also the site of irreplaceable protected peatland. I have been firmly against these proposals ever since they were first brought forward in 2023, and I have been inundated with correspondence from my constituents and local campaign groups who agree that this scheme will be hugely detrimental to our heritage landscape and our precious protected peatland.

Before today’s debate, I wrote to the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for Shipley (Anna Dixon), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) and for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), inviting them to speak in today’s debate, so that we could work on a cross-party basis to strongly oppose these development proposals. Like me, I am sure that they have been inundated with correspondence from constituents concerned about these proposals, so it is disappointing not to see all of them here today.

Before I outline in more detail my concerns about the Calderdale wind farm proposals, I want to be very clear that I am not against wind farm developments or renewable energy schemes. However, I am absolutely against wind farms being developed where they will have a huge impact on the environment, ecology, wildlife, heritage, flooding risk and the very carbon sequestration ability of our peat, which will be hugely negatively impacted.

It is with peat—and its carbon storage ability being severely impacted—that I will start. The peat in the south Pennine moors is generally considered to be around 9,000 years old; the mosaic of blanket bogs began forming thousands of years ago from sphagnum moss. For centuries, the peat has been absorbing the carbon emissions from the mills of our industrial past, our transport and our everyday modern life.

Peat is delicate and grows just a millimetre a year if we are lucky, and only when subject to a limited range of favourable environmental and climate conditions. The proposals of the Calderdale wind farm could cover approximately 2,300 hectares of protected peatland above Hebden Bridge and Haworth, and the impacts of disturbing such precious peatland will have disastrous consequences on the local area and beyond.

Peatland is a natural store of carbon, capturing and storing 26 times as much carbon as our forests in the UK. Almost all our UK peatlands have at least some blanket bog, with UK uplands containing around 15% of the blanket bog in the world. The Walshaw moor alone is made up of approximately 16,000 acres of it. Healthy peatlands will absorb and store carbon, and build carbon into the peat. However, if peatlands are damaged, which is unavoidable with huge infrastructure projects such as wind farms, it can release carbon back into the atmosphere, dramatically increasing carbon dioxide emissions. The amount of infrastructure required for the Calderdale wind farm is huge. It includes the foundations associated with each turbine, the complex road network that needs to be built across the peat so that each turbine can be fixed in place, the expansive base areas next to each turbine, the vast cabling routes that need to be buried underneath the peat, the man-made drainage cut-outs that need to be installed, the sub-stations, the weather monitoring and the fencing—I could go on. All of that will have a deeply damaging impact on our protected peatland.

As with any major infrastructure project, access routes will need to be created to the turbine sites, and those service roads will cut across blanket bog and seriously impact landscape hydrology. Long-established estate roads in uplands tend to avoid peatland because of the maintenance challenges, but wind farm roads simply cannot do that; they are constrained by the requirements of the turbine layout and the moorland topography. That is not just a short-term problem; once constructed, a wind farm road becomes a permanent feature of the landscape. Peat subsidence will continue indefinitely because of the need for our roads to be kept constantly dry and because of compression from the weight of roadway material. A very real example of that is the A5, which was built across peatland on the Welsh border nearly 300 years ago but continues to subside today.

I know that the developers and those supporting the Calderdale wind farm proposals like to say that the benefits of producing renewable energy outweigh the carbon loss caused by the development, but the justifications they have offered have been extremely poor. In fact, Professor Richard Lindsay, a world-leading expert on peatland ecosystems, who I spoke to just last week, has described those making this argument as

“clinging to the carbon calculator as a drowning man clings to a life belt”.

By that, he means that the system of measuring carbon storage impact is not fit for purpose. It simply does not consider all the influencing factors, or indeed the cumulative impact of onshore wind farm developments, the vast majority of which are north of the border in Scotland and in Wales.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and rightly highlighting the concerns about these developments. In my constituency in the Borders, we have wind farms, battery storage proposals and solar farms. As my hon. Friend said, developers talk at length about the supposed environmental benefits, but that is no more than greenwashing, because the wider negative impact these developments will have on the local environment where these developments are taking place is far greater than any benefit that might come from the developments proceeding.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes an excellent point: the developers have failed to ascertain that the positives of the project outweigh its negative impacts, including the impact on the ability of the peatland to sequester and store carbon. That is before even considering all the negative impacts on highways, the impacts of the infrastructure that has to be developed and the impact on local communities. The renewable energy scheme will be incredibly detrimental; the peatland will hold more carbon. That is why I am firmly opposed to the development.

Another huge risk with the development of wind farms on sites of protected peatland such as Walshaw moor is the impact on both water quality and flooding. Peatland is 95% to 98% water—it has the same percentage of solid content as a jellyfish. Disturbing it through the construction of wind turbines on Walshaw moor will increase flood risk and damage water quality in Calder Valley towns and surrounding communities. Studies have shown that putting any kind of hard infrastructure on peatland has a direct negative impact on how peat interacts with itself; it prevents peat bogs from absorbing rainwater, which ultimately increases flood risk downstream and increases the likelihood of serious slipping incidents.

Peatland also plays a key role in regulating water quality. Around 72% of the UK’s reservoirs are fed from peat, and over 28 million people consume water from peaty catchments. Degradation and disturbance of peat is often accompanied by increases in dissolved and particulate organic carbon loads, which increases the treatment costs required to make water drinkable.

Another additional environmental risk associated with the Calderdale wind farm proposal is the risk to local wildlife. Walshaw moor is home to a number of protected bird species, including the lapwing, golden plover, merlin, short-eared owl and the curlew—today, in fact, is World Curlew Day. Those species use Walshaw moor as breeding grounds, and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have warned that disturbing such populations with the installation of wind turbines will significantly damage overall numbers of the birds.

I return to the specifics of the Calderdale wind farm’s impact on local heritage and culture. Rebecca Yorke and her team at the Brontë Society, who look after the Brontë parsonage in Haworth in my constituency, do incredible work. Understandably, our much-loved Brontë Society is firmly against the proposed wind farm development across our heritage landscape, which encompasses Top Withens, believed to be the inspiration for the setting of “Wuthering Heights”. That landscape, I might add, has a live application worked up right now for UNESCO world heritage status, along with listed status for Top Withens. All that has widespread community support.

Our literary landscape offering to the world, which inspired the Brontës’ imaginations in their renowned novels and poetry, is under threat. If this wind farm proposal goes ahead, that landscape will be blighted forever. We know that because, even after the decommissioning stage of the wind farm, none of the infrastructure is proposed to be removed, apart from the turbines themselves. The road infrastructure, all that cabling and those deep foundations that sit beneath the turbines are not proposed to be removed once the wind farm comes to the end of its life, blighting our heritage landscape and the peat forever.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that with nuclear power stations, for example, decommissioning costs are built into the cost-benefit analysis of any such projects, and yet that is not the case when wind farms are built in environmentally sensitive areas?

[Robbie Moore]

The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right, because the decommissioning costs are not necessarily built into what the impact will be on our environment, our protected peat or our wildlife. I know that because the developers themselves say that once the site finishes its usage, parts of the development will not be removed—such as the piles, the infrastructure for the road, the foundations—but simply remain in situ.

Worse than that, however, should an additional wind farm come down the line, it will use the infrastructure that is already in place, but is likely to have to be expanded. A further real live concern is because when the application came before us, the initial proposal was for 65 wind turbines, although that has been reduced to 35 wind turbines now. That creates the real worry of it potentially being only phase 1 of a much bigger wind farm coming down the line. Therefore, once the precedent is set of an application being approved by the Government —it will be the Secretary of State who determines it—stage 2 will therefore come down the line. That deeply worries me.

I am grateful that, last week, I had the opportunity to speak with peat experts, Dr Andreas Heinemeyer, Professor Richard Lindsay, Dr Emma Hinchcliffe and Jessica Fìor-Berry, all of whom pointed to the complete lack of research and evidence about the impact of wind farm development on protected peatland. I therefore ask the Labour Government why the Minister is in favour of pushing through development on protected peatland such as Walshaw moor despite the hugely damaging impacts I have outlined in this speech.

The proposals for the Calderdale wind farm demonstrate a glaringly obvious hypocrisy that this Government show when it comes to protecting our protected, precious peatland. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to expanding nature-rich habitats such as peatlands. The Minister for Nature herself has repeatedly called our peatlands “this country’s Amazon rainforest”, so why do the Labour Government continue to support completely destroying them—when other options are available—given the scale of this development?

The development is being considered a nationally significant infrastructure project, so it will be the Secretary of State who determines the application. I ask the Minister, however, why have this Government permitted the developer to undertake its statutory consultation right now, during a period when the two local councils, Bradford council and Calderdale council, are in the middle of all-out local elections and cannot comment because of purdah? Will the Minister seek to extend the statutory consultation period, as I have requested of the Secretary of State? I ask all watching this debate who agree that this development will be catastrophic to participate in the consultation, which is open right now.

For the reasons I have set out, I am clear that this wind farm development must not be approved. My fellow Worth Valley Conservative councillors do not want it, my constituents do not want it, world-leading peat experts do not want it and I suspect the Nature Minister does not want it either, so why is the Minister enabling this proposal to continue under this Labour Government? What I am less clear on is the positions of my neighbouring Members of Parliament: the hon. Members for Halifax, for Shipley, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley. I urge them to join me in opposing this disastrous scheme.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

As the Member for Shipley and a neighbouring constituent, I want to make those listening aware that we have attended the debate and will shortly be giving our views on the proposals, as the hon. Member invited us to do, for which I thank him.

[Robbie Moore]

Perfect intervention there, but we have had an intervention from only one of the five neighbouring Labour Members of Parliament I invited to this debate, of which only two turned up. I wrote to all those Members of Parliament—crikey, it must have been about seven months ago—inviting them to join me in a cross-party consensus so that we could join forces in opposing this scheme. Despite the hon. Member for Shipley’s intervention, I am yet to hear that she is opposed to this scheme. I invite her, and the hon. Members for Halifax, for Calder Valley, for Pendle and Clitheroe and for Burnley, to join me in opposing this scheme.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. May I confirm that the hon. Member has informed the Members he mentioned that he was going to mention them in this debate?

[Robbie Moore]

Sir Alec, not only did I inform them today to remind them to come to this debate, I wrote to them last week inviting them to come to this debate and I wrote to them maybe six months ago asking them to join me. They are well aware that this debate is taking place. It is very disappointing that they did not turn up to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents.

Renewable energy could be an essential part of our future, but not like this—not here, and not at the cost of everything the Brontë country represents. This scheme must be stopped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

These investments are critical, and it is pleasing that the Labour Government are taking nature actions so seriously. In addition to those I mentioned, there is also the planting of sphagnum moss—which is quite tricky to pronounce.

Bradford has recently published its climate action plan 2025-28, which outlines its comprehensive approach to working towards a low-carbon future. I also welcome steps taken by the Government at a national level with the environmental improvement plan, which was published just a few months ago. It says that we will—

“Restore approximately 280,000ha of peatland in England by 2050”.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member seems to be dancing around the edges. This debate is on the matter of

“windfarm development on protected peatland”

but she has not mentioned anything to do with wind farms yet. I am keen to understand whether she is for or against the Calderdale wind farm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish hon. Members a happy World Curlew Day--tan, small, slender, often up to its knees in muck and at the risk of extinction in West Yorkshire--I also congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing the debate.

This debate, much like my constituency, comes under the shadow of plans to build England’s largest wind farm on protected peatland on Walshaw moor. I believe it is a uniquely beautiful landscape, resplendent with curlews, lapwings and other moorland birds. As a fell runner, I love that environment, which is one of the most special places on earth. From Top Withens to the open moorland, I am proud to have one of the most beautiful constituencies.

Its beauty and the curlews, however, are not in and of themselves a reason to block the development of any renewable energy project. I subscribe to the view that we face a climate and nature emergency. Climate change is real and man-made. Our energy use makes it vital to ramp up the building of green energy infrastructure for the future as quickly as possible. For that reason, there would have to be clear and compelling evidence for me to question the development of a wind farm or any other renewable energy project.

We must follow the science, however. The more we learn about peat and its role in absorbing carbon, the clearer it is that building on peat will do more harm than good. Peatland covers just 3% of the world’s land surface but stores around 30% of its soil carbon. Disturbing peat by building wind farms risks releasing that stored carbon, likely cancelling the carbon saved through wind farms, particularly bearing in mind that these wind turbines have just a 25-year lifespan.

Research by the University of Aberdeen, referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, suggests that developers should avoid building wind farms on peatland altogether. In response, the Scottish Government have tightened their policy in that area. In England, those considerations are not applied consistently, but that needs to be reformed and brought into line.

As I have said in multiple representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the fundamental problem that we face is, unsurprisingly, one of joined-up Government. Too frequently under the last Government, the environment and climate change were treated as an afterthought and not as central to the business of Government.

Just last month, the Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the lack of joined-up thinking between DEFRA and DESNZ, and the proposal that we are discussing is a clear example. On the one hand, DEFRA has committed £85 million to restoring and managing peatlands, preserving our environment and offsetting our carbon emissions. On the other hand, if DESNZ signs off projects like this, it will damage those peatlands without the same scrutiny as other developments, so we have to take a step back and assess whether it is truly the right course of action. Our Government’s revised national planning policy framework argues against developments that involve peat extraction, but that is contradicted if we continue to develop these projects. Although it is not okay for someone to dig up a bit of peat to put on their garden, it is okay to displace 8,000 cubic metres of peat to build a wind turbine.

Calderdale energy park represents a risk to a moor where in places the peat is more than 2 metres deep, according to Natural England’s peat map. As a fell runner, I can attest to that, because I have fallen into some of those peat bogs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Nature, put it starkly:

“Our peatlands are this country’s Amazon Rainforest and in desperate need of restoration and protection”.

She is absolutely right—more so, in fact, because peatland stores 30 times more carbon per hectare than the rainforest. Let us be clear: we would join in the international opprobrium if the Brazilian Government were to fell trees in the Amazon to install solar panels in the hope of securing carbon credits. We should apply the same seriousness to the protection of one of our most carbon-rich landscapes.

[Robbie Moore]

I know that on 30 March the hon. Member wrote to the Secretary of State asking for clarity on the guidance associated with the national policy statement for renewable energy infrastructure, EN-3, and its relationship with peatlands. I hear him speak about the importance of protecting peat, but I am less certain about what his position is on the Calderdale wind farm. Is he for or against the development of the Calderdale wind farm in his constituency?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I think my position is fairly clear from what I am saying, but my point—this is the very clear thing—is not about a development in Calderdale, but about the principle of trying to tackle climate change and looking at that in the round with regard to developments on peat and whether any developments on peat make sense. I am more interested in the broad principle. I was never going to look for an outcome and find evidence to support it. I followed the evidence where it led me, and it led me to the concerns that I have expressed to Ministers fairly constantly, to the point where I have made clear my view that building on protected peat is counterproductive to our climate change aims.

In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate, because many Members across the House appreciate the need for a green energy revolution and agree that we have to move at speed to respond to the scale of the climate crisis. I recognise the urgency to meet net zero, but we have to get it right. We have to accept that green energy that comes at the cost of our environment is not in fact green, and we must be clear that projects that will dig up peat are wrong, even if that is for homes or wind turbines. I urge Ministers to make clear our position on this and how we are looking at that, so we can come to a position that does not undermine what we are trying to do overall in our climate aims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Another key challenge in building the turbines is the infrastructure, because a huge amount of aggregate to facilitate the piling of the foundations and road infrastructure must be brought in from elsewhere, which could be a long distance away. That is exactly the challenge we are finding at the Calderdale wind farm, where aggregate will have to be brought from miles away—nowhere near the actual proposal. Does the right hon. Member agree that this demonstrates why it is so ludicrous to have wind farm developments on protected peatland in areas that are not suitable?

[Sammy Wilson]

These are all issues that should be taken up during the planning process, and I am not sure that happens. When I have objected to wind farm applications in Northern Ireland, the answer has been, “This is a way of producing clean energy.” I do not even accept that argument. It is not clean, in the way in which the landscape has to be disrupted. Most of the steel for wind turbines is produced outside the country, from sources that produce it in less clean ways than we do. Anyone who has taken any interest in the matter will be appalled at the environmental and human degradation caused by extracting the rare earth metals required for these wind turbines.

We are currently spending huge amounts of money on a huge new electricity infrastructure because, instead of bringing power from one station, we are bringing it from stations spread all over the countryside, hence the investment in the infrastructure, which individuals are paying for through their monthly bills. I have heard the defence today that this is the cost of getting clean energy. We have to ask ourselves, “Is it even clean energy?” Is it any more environmentally friendly than some of our other methods? If we look at the carbon intensity of each machine used to produce the energy, an individual turbine is more carbon-intensive than a generator in a power station. All those factors are not taken into consideration.

To the Minister, and to those who support the whole policy of net zero and what must be done to achieve it, I say let us at least be honest with ourselves. Do these projects achieve what we want to achieve? If they do not, whether in our constituencies or somebody else’s, there should not be any hesitation in saying that they prevent us from achieving the goal that we want to achieve.

Maybe the Minister can enlighten us. When applying to build a road, all kinds of environmental assessments, et cetera, have to be done. Since these developments are designed to reduce carbon emissions, a proper carbon calculation should be done when a planning application is made. If that had been done, I suspect that many of these projects would not have been given permission, as their carbon output would have been greater than is acceptable. If we are to stop this, we must pay attention to the carbon output and ensure that planning permissions are predicated on a proper assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, which I know is very important for his constituency, just as it is for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn)—I know that he has done a huge amount of work in engaging Ministers on this topic and I thank him for that. He is probably the person in the room who has the greatest intimate knowledge of the bottom of a peat bog. I also wish everybody a very happy World Curlew Day.

The Government’s ambition of clean power by 2030 is critical for moving all of us off our costly reliance on fossil fuels and for protecting consumer bills. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), rightly said that we need more investment in small, modular reactors. That is true, but we also need to invest in our cheapest form of energy, which is solar; our second cheapest, which is onshore wind; our third cheapest, which is offshore wind; and full scale nuclear and small modular reactors. We need to do all those things for our energy security, to bring bills down and, of course, to tackle climate change.

Recent events in the middle east have reinforced the importance of producing home-grown clean energy. Delivering our clean power mission will help to boost Britain’s energy independence, protect bill payers, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis. Onshore wind is a critical component to delivering those goals. Getting more low-cost renewables such as onshore wind on to the system reduces our exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets, protecting British families from the effects of future price shocks. This Government will continue to support onshore wind. We have removed the damaging de facto ban in England that has been in place for almost a decade and reintroduced the technology into the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime.

[Robbie Moore]

The very point the Minister is making is the reason why the application for the Calderdale wind farm has come before us: because this Labour Government removed the onshore wind moratorium put in place by the last Conservative Administration. Given the concerns that I raised about the protected nature of that peatland and the impact on the precious peat, and all the concerns raised by Opposition Members, what is the Government’s position when there is an application that is on protected peat?

[Chris McDonald]

I hope the hon. Member will recognise that as I continue my remarks I will address many of the points that he made in his speech, including the point about peatland. From the contributions we have heard today, I would say there is strong agreement in this room on the need both to tackle climate change and to care for our special environments in the UK, including peatland. He will hear more on that from me shortly.

Removing the ban on onshore wind was a very early and important decision that the Government made. The onshore wind projects deliver a very low-cost form of energy and improve our energy security. The momentum is on our side. Last year, onshore wind power produced 12% of our total electricity. We recognise, of course, that poorly sited, poorly designed onshore wind farms have impacts on local communities in relation to wildlife, local heritage and residents’ sense of place. That is why our planning system has strong checks and balances to manage those impacts, including through requirements for extensive up-front surveys and statutory assessments on the impacts of the environment and important habitats. Those checks and balances extend, of course, to peatlands.

We know that peatlands are vital for biodiversity, for carbon and for water. Peatlands are sensitive habitats and are important for many species of flora and fauna. Because peat soils are rich in carbon, disturbances will have climate impacts. We therefore recognise that building infrastructure such as onshore wind on peatland can have detrimental impacts, and we appreciate that communities have valid concerns about that. An e-petition, to which the Government responded last year, called for a ban on building onshore wind farms on peatland in England, and we have heard those calls repeated in this debate. That is why we have protections in the planning system requiring careful consideration from developers and decision makers when onshore wind farm developments are proposed on peatlands.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) also asked a question about the protection of peatlands. Approximately half of England’s deep peat and a quarter of all England’s peat soils are afforded special protection through being classed as irreplaceable habitats, as we heard earlier. That affords additional protection in the planning process. The Government have published specific guidance for onshore wind and peat in the national policy statements, which are used to assess the impacts of nationally significant infrastructure projects.

We heard earlier about EN-3, the national policy statement for renewable energy, which makes clear that, although onshore wind is permitted on peatland, applicants should seek and rule out other locations first. EN-3 guides developers to avoid peatland where possible, particularly areas of deep peat. Where that is not possible, developers are required to mitigate or compensate for peatland impacts. We are now going further to give decision makers and developers more tools to assess and manage the impacts of onshore wind on peatland. We committed in EN-3 to publish additional guidance regarding wind farm construction on peatland in England, something the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) asked about in particular.

I can confirm that we are in ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government about developing a carbon calculator tool for England similar to the one currently used in Scotland, which could inform policy decisions around developments on peatlands. I hope that my words have clarified the Government’s position and addressed some of the concerns. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley might be disappointed that I have not directly referenced the project in his constituency, but hopefully he realises that, given the role of the Secretary of State, I have constrained my comments to speak more generally.

[Robbie Moore]

I recognise that, but I have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to extend the consultation period that is in place right now—it ends on 10 June. Given that the developer put this consultation in place in the middle of local elections, the two key councils, Bradford and Calderdale, cannot comment formally until after those elections, and it is also likely that there will be a change in leadership in those councils. Will the Secretary of State, via the Minister, consider at least extending that statutory consultation so that more people can get engaged and we can have proper responses from the two key councils?

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Member is right; he mentioned that and I meant to respond to it, but I had forgotten. It is important to note that there is no role for the Government in extending the consultation—that is a matter for the developer, but I am sure that any responsible developer would listen very carefully to the voice of the local community and Members of Parliament, so it is important that he has put that on the record.

Our clean power 2030 mission is our route to lower bills, greater energy security and resilience, economic growth and the revival of regions that have been left behind, including our industrial heartlands. However, we also know that it cannot and must not come at an unacceptable cost to our natural world and our communities, so we are taking a balanced approach. We do not believe that clean energy must come at the expense of our environment. That is why we are investing significantly in protecting and restoring nature, including peatlands, while providing the protections and flexibility we need through the planning system to manage impacts and enable deployment.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley for securing this debate; I thank everyone who participated—and of course I thank you, Sir Alec, in the Chair.

[Robbie Moore]

The reason for calling this debate is that we are dealing with a real and live challenge, particularly in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. The debate has been very worthwhile, but I have major concerns. There was a moratorium in place under the previous Conservative Administration, which has been removed by this Labour Government, enabling these sorts of developments—wind farms on protected peatland—to take place. Yet all the Labour Government can offer is guidance, which simply refers to protected peat being looked at and referenced within any application. That is deeply worrying.

Secondly, the Minister referred to ongoing discussions on the carbon calculator with the Scottish Government. That is too late. An application is before us in West Yorkshire. Any ongoing carbon calculator discussions are too late, because the application is being considered right now.

My third point is that as far as I can see, my neighbouring Members of Parliament have not put forward a position on the Floor of the House on whether they will join me to campaign as strongly as we can against this application. Concerns have been raised, but there is no formal position. It is deeply worrying that some of the Labour Members of Parliament I wrote to—I gave plenty of notice—did not feel it was worth turning up to this debate. It is clear that this Government’s policy in pursuit of net zero makes absolutely net zero sense.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered windfarm development on protected peatland.

Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Bool]

I am not debating the National Farmers Union; I am saying that we should not be putting farmers in this position. I would not blame any farmer trying to make a bit of extra money from solar, particularly since the current environment is very difficult for them. The problem is that ground-mounted solar is not the best use of that land in any event. Agricultural land should be used for exactly that—agriculture.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I am afraid to say that I think the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has completely missed the point, because the reality is that this country is about 60% to 63% self-sufficient in terms of food security. This is not just about land being taken out of production; it is also about the long-term degradation of the health of the soil on which the solar is being mounted, because of issues such as shading, reduced rainfall, construction-related compaction issues, reduced organic matter and contamination risks. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about taking the land out of production but about the long-term degradation of soil health once the land comes back into agricultural production—if it ever does—after the solar agreement of 40 years or so has elapsed?

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely, and that is one of the arguments that we were trying to make in the hearing against the Green Hill proposal, which is for 60 years. We cannot see the justification for that. There will be a renewal right, no doubt, and even within those 60 years, the solar panels will be degraded from rain and we will not know what the run-off will cause. There are so many factors that we do not know about, and I want to ensure that we have good-quality agricultural land for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be drawn on golf course membership, because I do not know how many of my constituents are members of golf courses; I can imagine how many Conservative Members are.

I come back to the point about land use, because we absolutely recognise the importance of having a framework for how we use land across the country. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the first-ever land use framework in March— I recommend a read of it. It is a vision for all of England’s land use, using the latest data on how much we need for housing, energy and all sorts of things to ensure that we are making the best use of land. Both that and the strategic spatial approach to planning the energy system could have been done in those 14 years, but they were not. That is why we have ended up with a haphazard approach to strategic planning, and why we are now building the grid to connect the renewables that were built all over the country without that spatial plan. It is important that we strategically plan that, and it was not done previously, so we are moving forward to do it.

[Robbie Moore]

I have read the land use framework. The Minister has hit the nail on the head, because its sole beneficiary is his Department—the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and not our farmers or our food security. Can he specifically address the issue of land quality? If we are putting ground-mounted solar on agricultural land, will he at least recognise that that will degrade the quality of the soil health, given the amount of time that those solar panels will be in situ?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be able to go into the detail of everyone’s points, but the hon. Member is wrong about the land use framework. Perhaps he should read it again, because it details quite clearly the different land uses across the country. There is always tension about land use—of course there is. That has been true throughout history, and that is why we are strategically planning it.

We are clear that the planning system recognises best use. Every application is considered on its merits; I am not going to be drawn on individual applications, but we have clearly said that ground-mounted solar should be used, wherever possible, not on the best-used land.

Royal Mail: Performance

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.

The debate is particularly timely because, just yesterday, my office received three separate phone calls about three separate addresses in Fell Lane in Keighley, none of which have received their post for the last two weeks, despite those residents specifically expecting letters. I do, however, commend the work of postal workers across the country, without whom we could not function. Let me be clear that my contribution today is aimed not at them, but at the management structures that sit within Royal Mail.

I have had various correspondence and meetings with Royal Mail—one in September last year, and two following on from that—specifically raising the cases of my constituents. One pensioner, for example, waited more than two weeks for a new bank card to arrive. In that time, she could not access her pension and do the basics of her weekly food shop. Another constituent waited 10 days for a hospital letter to arrive. He is undergoing chemotherapy, so ended up missing a vital appointment. Distrust of the postal service has become so bad that one of my constituents hand-delivers documents to the court herself, unable to trust the system after receiving papers late in the post.

Royal Mail’s website still says that if someone buys a second-class stamp, they can expect that post to be delivered within two to three working days, or indeed on a Saturday, yet in my meetings with Royal Mail staff, they tell me that that is not internally the expectation of the delivery of their service. There is therefore a discontinuity between what they are telling the public and Members of Parliament and how they are operating internally. That must change, and I expect the Minister to hold Royal Mail to account on behalf of my constituents and those of all Members of Parliament here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

This has been an incredibly powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for their contributions. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. There has been a consistent theme and a consistent message, but I will try not to repeat all the powerful speeches that we have had. I will try to focus my speech on the questions for the Minister.

I have had a lot of casework in West Worcestershire on this issue, and it seems to have happened post Ofcom’s decision in July 2025 to allow a change to the universal service obligation. That seems to be the point at which I observed a huge increase in casework. We have heard about really serious consequences on our constituents’ lives. It is incredibly important that the Minister gets to grips in terms of his responsibilities vis-à-vis particularly the regulator. I want to focus on the meeting that the Minister had last week with Ofcom, and I want to add my appreciation for the amazing work that our posties do in West Worcestershire.

The meeting with Ofcom came about on the afternoon after last week’s urgent question, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the action that he is taking. Ofcom agreed that the new Czech owner of Royal Mail could change the universal service obligation, and that change started last July. The new delivery model means that first class should continue to be delivered on a daily basis, and second class should be every other day. But what we have heard loud and clear in this debate today is that that does not seem to be happening. We buy a first-class stamp for a reason—because we want a delivery the next day. How is Ofcom justifying its decision to allow Royal Mail to have higher costs for a service that is clearly getting worse? What did it tell the Minister at the meeting that he had? Did he secure any commitments from Ofcom about its powers vis-à-vis Royal Mail?

I know that the Minister also sits down regularly with Royal Mail. What discussions has he had with Royal Mail about the issues that have been so well articulated across the House this morning? Staffing cuts, delivery revisions and operational changes have clearly contributed to this collapse in performance. Does the Minister believe that the current regulatory framework for this precious part of our critical national infrastructure is fit for purpose? Is he considering any reforms to the regulatory framework for Royal Mail?

Royal Mail continues to say—I think we have heard it illustrated by the contributions this morning—that the universal service obligation, as currently defined, is impossible to deliver. When the company was bought, the new owner must have done due diligence on what the obligations were. Does the Minister accept the premise that the current universal service obligation is impossible to deliver, or does he think that, with the right regulatory interventions, the owner can meet it?

The recent letter that Royal Mail sent to the Business and Trade Committee refers to its contingency plans to prioritise parcels to prevent unsafe build-ups, but I think all of us believe and have heard anecdotally that the prioritisation of parcels is a deliberate business decision, because that is where the margin is seen to be. Can the Minister explain the conversations that he has had with Royal Mail about the threshold for that contingency—Royal Mail claims that it holds it in reserve—for addressing parcels with a higher priority than letters? At what point does a temporary decision to implement that contingency become a permanent de facto policy of deprioritising letters—the very heart of our universal service obligation?

[Robbie Moore]

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

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I look forward to the Minister responding to that, but I think we have heard today that even that weaker delivery obligation is not being met.

We also need to consider the wider business context that we are living in. Many businesses like Royal Mail have had to pay this additional jobs tax. The Employment Rights Act is having an impact on hiring across the economy. Does the Minister acknowledge that his own Government’s decisions have affected the situation? What assessment has he made of the impact of Government tax policies on Royal Mail’s financial resilience?

In conclusion, this debate is about ensuring that a service relied upon by millions is restored to the standards that the law requires. What steps immediately can the Minister take to restore a reliable six-day service? What action will he take to hold Royal Mail to its legal obligations? What reforms will he pursue to ensure that Ofcom is an active, effective regulator rather than a passive observer? When will the public finally see improvements to the service in the way that they have been promised for years?

Sale of Fireworks

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 738192 and 732559 relating to the sale of fireworks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. It is a privilege to introduce the debate on these two petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

It is not the first time we have been here. In December 2024, I was asked by the Petitions Committee to lead a similar debate on fireworks after more than 120,000 people signed two similar petitions for change. Since then, I have met campaigners and organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the British Horse Society and many more. It is clear that public support for change is overwhelming. In this place, Members of Parliament across the political spectrum support calls for change, yet here we are again, debating this important issue. That should be a clear and loud message to Ministers to act right now.

The petitions we are debating today have received more than 183,000 and 193,000 signatures respectively: more than 376,000 signatures when taken together. I have spoken to the lead petitioners—Helen and Graham, who are in the Public Gallery today—about their deep love for animals and the reasons why they created the petitions. It is undeniable that the inappropriate use of fireworks can have a devastating impact on domestic pets, farm animals and the like.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

I want to thank my constituent Robert Branch, who was responsible for starting one of the petitions, and whom I met last week. As a fellow dog owner, I know how important these issues are to local people in High Peak.

[Robbie Moore]

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—

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robbie Moore]

Before I tell that story, I will give way.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. In my constituency, many people have written to me about the impact of fireworks on dogs. Two people in particular, Marianne and Rosleen, wrote about how excessive fireworks around fireworks night cause their dogs to tremble uncontrollably and run desperately away from their owners. Does he share my concern about the impact on animals, and does he agree with the petitioners that the Government must do more to regulate and control the amount of fireworks we see throughout the year?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Some hon. Members are standing. It is only convention that Members sit on a particular side of the room. Perhaps there will be a cross-party love-in today; we have started to see one already. If Members want to move to the other side of the Chamber where there are seats, they are able to do so. I will recognise your individual parties, so do not panic.

[Robbie Moore]

For a moment there, I thought there were some defections to the Conservative party coming across—we can live in hope.

In Riddlesden just before Christmas, fireworks led to the tragic death of a family’s foal, known as King. I know we cannot use images in the debate, but I have an image of King on my desk. It is believed that King, terrified by fireworks, bolted in the night. He was found by local farmer Hannah the next morning, impaled on a piece of farm machinery. Hannah said:

“We had to lift the machinery off him and drag him out, but he sadly died from his injuries. It was just awful, like something out of a horror film.”

Let that be a message to anyone who still says that fireworks are merely a matter of harmless fun—they are not.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful statement about the impact on animals. I thank the petitioners in Epping Forest who have signed the petition, including the Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which triggered this debate and has its Ada Cole stables in my constituency. As a veterinary surgeon, sadly I have seen at first hand the impact of fireworks: small animals go missing and get injured, and farm animal livestock and horses receive horrific injuries. Does my hon. Friend agree that something has to be done to keep people and animals safe from fireworks?

[Robbie Moore]

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.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

As a fellow veterinary surgeon, I reiterate what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) just said. Every vet will have stitched up horses or treated dogs or cats that have been affected. It is not a niche problem or unusual: every vet dreads being on call on fireworks night because they know that they will be busy.

[Robbie Moore]

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.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my constituent Julie McMillan, who has emailed me with her concerns about fireworks every year for the 19 years that I have been a Member of this place or of the Scottish Parliament. Many other people have raised the same concern. I urge caution about what has happened in Scotland. The Scottish Government introduced a new licensing regime, much of which does not work, and they have had to pause the whole system. Although we need greater control and consistency across the UK, the Minister should not follow what the SNP Scottish Government have done.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A UK-wide approach needs to be taken on this issue, so I urge the Government to work with the devolved Governments to ensure a strategy that works. We can take those lessons from north of the border.

The death of any animal is upsetting, particularly a family pet, and having grown up on a farm I know all too well that this has an impact on farmed animals too. It is easy to forget that many animals are not just pets. They are much more sensitive to sound than humans, and fireworks can be deafening.

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Before this debate, I was contacted by more than 100 constituents who raised concerns about animals. One constituent also raised concerns about the impact on her mental health. Does the hon. Member agree that, while a lot of people use fireworks responsibly, there are concerns about the impact of fireworks on people’s mental health and wellbeing, as well as their impact on animals?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree, and I will talk about that in my speech, as well as the negative implications on veterans and those with anxiety-related issues.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Given so many people write to us about this issue, it is clear that we all feel the impact. On new year’s eve, my constituent Kim reported that fireworks went on in Whalley Range until 4.30 am. The noise was so loud and persistent that it set off their house alarm. Does the hon. Member agree that the use of fireworks in the middle of the night is clearly antisocial behaviour and more must be done to tackle it?

[Robbie Moore]

I completely agree. In my constituency we are seeing the antisocial use of fireworks during the night and early in the morning throughout the year. That causes huge disruption to those hardworking individuals who just want to get a good night’s sleep so they can get up in the morning.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

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.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Brave Derby veterans have contacted me. Those who suffer from mental health or are recovering from PTSD are really concerned about the negative effect that fireworks have on their lives. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that those brave men and women who have put their lives on the line for our country deserve support when they need it the most.

[Robbie Moore]

I agree. For those who have anxiety-related issues, fireworks are an absolute trigger point when they are let off. The noise that they create and the resulting heightened levels of anxiety need to be noted by the Minister, who I hope will respond positively.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robbie Moore]

I will give way one more time; then I will carry on.

[Peter Swallow]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous with his time. I have had constituents contact me about this issue. Many of them recognise the importance of fireworks as a great British tradition on fireworks night and other such nights, but they want more regulation around the times of year at which fireworks can be enjoyed—and until what time in the evening—and around their volume, so that people are able to enjoy fireworks on great occasions in a responsible way that reflects that they are not as enjoyable for those with trauma, and those with pets. Does the hon. Member agree that we can get that balance right?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree that it is about making sure that we are not only introducing tougher regulation and enforcement but that those who use fireworks are using them appropriately. This does not necessarily need to be about a ban on fireworks; much tougher measures can be brought in with licensing on the decibels associated with fireworks. I urge the Government to look at that and not just respond, “We are going to take this away and think about it,” because that is the response that we have had for far too long.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

I will make a little more progress, then take interventions. We get this problem far too often in my constituency, in places such as Riddlesden, Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oakworth, Haworth, Ingrow and Silsden. Just this weekend, I put out a call across the UK asking people to contact me with their experiences of fireworks. I put that out only last night as I was coming down on the train and I received well over 900 responses, which just shows the strength of feeling on this issue. I have received much more correspondence on this issue in preparation for this debate. The stories that I have heard are horrifying. One resident wrote,

“I was at a care home caring for the elderly with Alzheimer’s. There is no respite from fireworks for them and it is so unpredictable. I saw three elderly gentlemen walk around for hours a day thinking it was a gas explosion. Some of the residents tried to leave the building and to run away as they didn’t feel safe. Some of the residents were crying and distressed, some sat with their head in their hands. Meal times are disrupted, every aspect of their life is affected.”

Enough is enough.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I, too, have had lots of constituents contact me about this issue with concern for neurodiverse people, people with mental health issues, veterans with PTSD and animal owners. My constituent Helen sent me video footage of her border collie Alf, cowering in fear under a table. I wonder if the hon. Member agrees that in today’s modern age there are lots of beautiful alternatives for displays in the air that do not require fireworks—not to say that fireworks are not marvellous at the right time—and which can actually be silent. Does he agree that more people should be encouraged to use modern technology to deliver awe-inspiring displays?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There are many other ways of having entertainment in the sky beyond using very loud fireworks. That gets to the detail of what one of the petitions is about: the decibels associated with fireworks going off.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Robbie Moore]

I will take two more interventions.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, pay tribute to Redwings Horse Sanctuary, which is headquartered in Norfolk. Norwich North was among the top five constituencies for the number of signatories to the petition. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as Redwings has pointed out, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not provide sufficient protection? That is why we need to consider measures such as reducing the decibel level of fireworks, to ensure that protection is there for both animals and people.

[Robbie Moore]

Following on from the hon. Member’s intervention, there is an opportunity in the animal welfare strategy announced by the Government over the Christmas period. I feel that it does not go far enough in detailing what could be put in place specifically to deal with fireworks in the context of animal welfare over the rest of this Parliament.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber, I find it difficult to listen to the hon. Member saying what could and should be done now, given that for 14 years a lot of this stuff could have been done but was not. However, my point is this: he has talked about domestic animals, farm animals, veterans and the elderly, but one group that has not been mentioned also needs to be considered—wild animals. Does he agree that we must also consider the perhaps unseen impact of these very loud fireworks on wildlife?

[Robbie Moore]

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.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

In my constituency, over 300 people have contacted me about this issue—100 just this year. I have also been aware of my own dog’s trauma over fireworks. However, there is another issue. What the hon. Gentleman is saying about reducing the decibel limit is the right way to go, but there is also the issue of safety. I witnessed the house opposite mine being set alight on new year’s eve as a result of its close proximity to fireworks; the people involved were made homeless for a time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should also consider restricting the use of fireworks to public displays, rather than letting them be used in private residences?

[Robbie Moore]

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.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his great speech and for the excellent way in which he is taking all the interventions. As someone who lives with a cat—I hesitate to say that I own one; it usually seems the other way round—I can see for myself, and from the emails I have had from Dartford residents concerned about their pets, that the disturbance caused by loud fireworks is hugely traumatising for them. Does he agree that we need not only to reduce the maximum noise level for consumer fireworks, as he has already said, but to seek further restrictions on the dates when fireworks can be purchased from both licensed and unlicensed sellers?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. As the hon. Member says, the issue is about tougher licensing as well. I have seen fireworks for sale in pop-up shops in my own constituency of Keighley; it cannot be right that no regulation is associated with that. The pop-up shops could be below residential flats or units and there could be a risk to life if a hazard is associated with that environment. I take the hon. Member’s points on board; these are options that the Minister should explore.

The biggest problem with fireworks is enforcement. Until a firework is lit illegally, no crime has been committed. By the time the police spot and respond to a firework in the sky, those responsible have had plenty of time to flee the scene or to dispose of what little evidence there was to begin with. It is incredibly difficult to enforce laws that regulate firework use, so it is right that today’s petitions—and wider reform—should focus on wider supply regulations. If permits were required by individuals, as opposed to on an event-by-event basis, that added hurdle when purchasing fireworks would deter a larger number of people who are looking for a cheap thrill.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. On his last point, there has been no new legislation to deal with antisocial firework use for over two decades. Some 557 of my constituents signed these petitions. Since being elected I have dealt with 150 separate cases in my constituency of Wolverhampton West; constituents have raised a number of issues, including fireworks going off at midnight or at 6 o’clock in the morning. Does the hon. Member agree that, as a start, the least this Government could do is what the first petition asked for—reduce maximum noise levels from 120 dB to 90 dB? Decreasing the volume of fireworks is one step forward to take now.

[Robbie Moore]

I have spoken about this issue for the last six years, so if the Government take any action after today’s debate, I will welcome it. I want both the recommendations put forward by the two petitions, which have been signed by over 376,000 people, to be listened to, acted on and enforced.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I will, for the final intervention.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous. A mother in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead was chased down the high street by some children firing fireworks at her and her kids. Her children spent the evening cowering under a table, suffering trauma. None of them was able to identify the perpetrators of what is clearly a crime. That is a police matter, but does the hon. Member agree that stronger restrictions are necessary to deal with situations where it is difficult to identify the perpetrators of firework crime?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree. Although enforcement is challenging, those carrying it out can be helped by tougher legislation. We need to learn the lessons from north of the border, up in Scotland, and what the SNP Government have rolled out. However, recommendations upon recommendations have been put forward to Governments of all colours over a period of time. I hope that now we will see action from the Minister.

I say it again: enough is enough. Public support for national change on fireworks is overwhelming. They disturb the peace of entire neighbourhoods, terrify pets and leave vulnerable people trapped in their homes throughout the year. If we choose to continue to ignore the issue, I fear the inevitable: there will be more unnecessary deaths, injuries and traumas for victims of fireworks in the future. In the face of such concern, there must be action, and that cannot occur until we have the full weight of the Government behind us. The Government have the power to end this nightmare for all, and they should do so without delay. I thank hon. Members for giving me the time to take as many interventions as possible. Let us have a good debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading today’s important debate, which is based on two petitions, one calling for a reduction in the noise limit for consumer fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB and another for limiting the sales of fireworks to local authority-approved displays. I have only just over 10 minutes to respond, so I might not be able to take as many interventions as the hon. Gentleman did. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for putting on record her thanks to everyone who has spoken today—she shaved a good minute off my speech. I thank her for that contribution.

I thank all hon. Members for their brilliant contributions. It has been an interesting debate. It is one of the longest and most well attended debates that I have been to, not only since I was appointed to this role but since I was elected. That shows the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. I thank hon. Members for representing their constituents.

Like other hon. Members, I am regularly contacted by residents who have been impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks, and I thank constituents for continuing to raise the matter with me. I assure them, hon. Members, campaigners and those in the Gallery, who have been with us through this afternoon’s debate, that I recognise the challenges that our communities face, and recognise the direct personal experiences that colleagues and constituents have shared.

I acknowledge the important work of Helen Whitelegg, from Redwings Horse Sanctuary, for beginning this petition as part of her organisation’s work to safeguard horses and advocate for their welfare, and I thank Robert Branch for starting his petition. Animal welfare charities such as Redwings and my local RSPCA branch in Halifax have been calling for a reduction in firework decibel levels for some time. The strength of feeling among the public is clear from the number of signatures that the petitions have received, as many hon. Members have mentioned.

I pay tribute to the family of Josephine Smith, who sadly passed away in October 2021 after a firework was placed through her letterbox. I express my condolences to Josephine’s family, and I am very grateful to her son Alan, whom I met earlier today, for his continued advocacy on this matter.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her dedicated campaigning and advocacy on this issue. I also thank her and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) for their recent private Members’ Bills on fireworks misuse and on fireworks noise control.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for their advocacy and engagement with me since my appointment. I know how important tackling antisocial firework use is to them and their constituents.

I also want to express my gratitude to the emergency services. Our firefighters, paramedics and police officers work tirelessly to keep our communities safe during the firework season.

As we have heard from hon. Members, this time of year, and the past couple of months, can be particularly challenging for pets, veteran communities, those with PTSD, those with mental health conditions, those with autism and those who are vulnerable. Members have raised many important ideas to consider: restricting the number of days of fireworks per year; controls on volume and evening hours; date restrictions on sale, purchase and types; further promoting advance notice of firework use; and a ban on indoor fireworks.

On that point, I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I was so saddened to hear about the tragic fire that claimed 40 lives at new year in Switzerland. My condolences go to the families and friends of all who lost their lives in that devastating event. I understand that the investigation into the cause of the fire is ongoing; it has been reported that the authorities have banned the use of indoor pyrotechnics, which my hon. Friend spoke about.

Those suggestions were in addition to the support demonstrated here today for the topics of the e-petitions: noise level and limiting the sale of fireworks to organised displays. That strength of feeling has absolutely been heard and recognised today, and I thank Members for all their contributions.

My aim is to minimise the negative impact of fireworks and to ensure that they are used responsibly and can continue to play a role in celebrations and festivities across our country. There is no doubt that fireworks are a popular feature of community and family events and bring people together. A lot of Members have brought examples of those events to the Floor of the House today. They range from bonfire night and new year to birthdays, Eid and Diwali, among many others. Although many—77%—of our constituents enjoy using fireworks, only 15% believe that the existing regulatory framework is sufficient. Research from the Social Market Foundation found that one solution would be to reduce the noise limit for consumer fireworks. That, of course, is one of the subjects of today’s debate.

The research also highlighted the potential for alternative kinds of light displays, using drones or lasers. The recent new year’s eve fireworks display in London showcased an alternative, pairing fireworks with Hologauze technology. The highly reflective, silver-coated gauze reflects projected images while remaining transparent, allowing viewers to see fireworks behind the visuals. This and the use of drones show how technology is changing our experience of the traditional fireworks season and offering a more sustainable, visually rich alternative for large-scale events. We of course encourage attendance at those organised public displays.

I will touch on current legislation and safe use, and then respond to colleagues’ points. Members will know that, as they are explosives, the sale and use of fireworks is extensively regulated, with controls placed on their import, storage, supply, possession and use. In Great Britain, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks. A lot of colleagues have referred to the 11 pm to 7 am curfew on the use of fireworks. Use later in the night—to 1 am—is permitted only on the traditional firework days, which I have already mentioned. I am grateful that many councils—including Calderdale council, which covers my constituency —have hard-working community safety teams in place to collect intelligence and allocate enforcement officers to hotspots of antisocial usage.

The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 contain provisions about the manufacture, import and distribution of pyrotechnics across the UK. That includes labelling, conformity assessment testing and other requirements to ensure the products’ safety. The legislation also sets out the requirement for manufacturers to ensure that their products do not exceed the 120 dB noise limit.

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister need not panic, because we have this room until 7.30 pm and so there is plenty of time for her to carry on speaking and to take interventions. She is kindly outlining the legislation that is currently in place, but it is not working. We know that there is a threshold of 11 pm on most nights, but across Keighley, Silsden and the Worth valley, I have constituents who experience fireworks going off throughout the night and throughout the year. Could the Minister explain what action the Government will be taking in response to the petitions that have been debated today?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for the reassurance about time. I absolutely recognise the need for enforcement—colleagues have mentioned the existing framework and the regulations that are in place. I will get to the consideration that we are making as a Department of further legislation and regulations, as suggested in the e-petitions, when I focus on antisocial behaviour and the comments that colleagues have made today.

Hon. Members will be aware that retailers storing fireworks must be licensed to do so and are able to sell them to consumers only for a limited period around seasonal celebrations. Retailers who wish to sell fireworks to the public outside those periods must obtain an additional selling licence from their local licensing authority. The brilliant local trading standards and fire and rescue authorities in metropolitan counties like West Yorkshire can take action against those storing or selling fireworks without an appropriate licence. They work closely with retailers to ensure that the fireworks being sold are safe, and they have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market.

I am grateful to have met with the Calderdale district fire service to understand the role they play in reducing risk and engaging with my local community. As a Minister, I will also continue to engage with colleagues, stakeholders and organisations on a national level to ensure that this Labour Government continue to work with the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, including Border Force and trading standards, to take action against anyone who imports or sells fireworks illegally in the UK. That enforcement is important, as is providing them with the resources they need to do their jobs.

As many colleagues have said, among those most impacted by the illegal and antisocial use of fireworks are our pets and veteran community. Colleagues have given some real, personal examples; my labrador Bruno is one of the many dogs that have been deeply impacted by fireworks in recent months. Since October, I have been contacted by hundreds of colleagues from across this House, by charities and campaigners, and by more than 100 constituents who have shared their experiences, including one who had to move away from their home during peak firework periods to protect their family pet. That engagement as a constituency MP, and the stories of colleagues here today, drives my work as a Minister to minimise the negative impact of fireworks.

Following my appointment, I have continued to build on the brilliant work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), in engaging with groups, organisations, charities and businesses to gather evidence on the year-round impact of fireworks, as we have heard today. I have been continuing that engagement with a wide range of consumer groups and charities. I have also met Members of this House—I thank them for those meetings—and of the other place, and the devolved Governments: I recently met the Scottish Government to understand the recent implications of their policies to build that evidence base. We will consider the effectiveness that further legislation may have in reducing antisocial and illegal firework use, and I will continue to build on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

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?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for raising animal welfare, which has come up time and again in this debate. I am proud of the strategy we launched as a Government, and work with my colleagues across Departments on a range of issues in my brief. It is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I understand the hon. Member’s reflections and those of colleagues from across the House today on the strategy and where we might be able to go further; we will continue to engage with colleagues on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned the impact of the campaign, with a total reach of around 130,000; there is always more that we can do. I thank colleagues who shared those social media posts and the guidance that we provided with their constituents. I am keen that we always continue to build on that, regulation aside. As we promote safe and responsible usage, I will continue to work with national charities such as Combat Stress, the RSPCA, the Firework Impact Coalition, Help for Heroes and so many more to ensure that our messaging reaches the general public.

While the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude towards them, as many colleagues have said, a minority of people use fireworks in a dangerous, inconsiderate and antisocial manner. We have heard some horrendous stories today highlighting examples of that. I understand the impact that inconsiderate and antisocial use can have: loud bangs are disturbing communities, particularly those with elderly residents, young children and pets, and in far too many places fireworks are set off late at night, disturbing hard-working parents, waking up children and causing terror to our most vulnerable constituents.

Dangerous misuse is a serious concern. Reports of fireworks being thrown at people—colleagues have mentioned that they have been thrown at prams—vehicles or buildings are completely unacceptable. We will continue to support the work of our council officers and police community support officers who work tirelessly to ensure that the vast majority of those who use fireworks for celebrations—

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

It has been a thought-provoking debate in which we have heard from Members from across the House. There are very few petitions debates where the whole Chamber is full, so I once again thank Helen Whitelegg and Robert Branch for bringing forward two really good petitions—signed by 376,000 people—that enabled us all to discuss this issue. I thank all the charities that have continuously engaged with Members from across the House, and also the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her consistent work raising this important issue for as long as I have been lucky enough to be a Member of Parliament.

We know the impact fireworks have on our animals—our pets and livestock—as well as on veterans, those with anxiety issues, our elderly, our children and hard-working people who just want a decent night’s sleep. This issue consistently comes back to this House, year after year, at every opportunity. The points that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made about indoor fireworks are noted and, dare I say, will control the nature of future debate.

I will end by reiterating some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), by saying that time is of the essence. I have a lot of respect for my neighbour, the Minister, who represents a constituency next door to my own. I am sure that she gets similar types of correspondence in her inbox. Her speech felt a little bit like it was brought off the shelf, dusted off from Ministers who have come and gone. I say that with the greatest respect to Conservative Ministers, too, who have delivered the same type of speech. I am getting very frustrated that this issue keeps coming back time and again, and I am sure many others in this House are, too. The Minister has not outlined any timeframes or strategy. Is it the Government’s ambition to bring forward a strategy that deals with the licensing and noise reduction of fireworks? I sincerely hope, on behalf of the 376,000 petitioners, that there will be some sort of a positive announcement from the Government—more than just the Minister’s warm words. I say that with the most respect for the Minister, who I know and who has been kind enough to reach out and speak to me many times on this issue. I thank her on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 738192 and 732559 relating to the sale of fireworks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

First, I am sure the whole House would echo my hon. Friend’s comments about her constituents in Monmouthshire. Our thanks go to the emergency services, who have done an incredibly diligent job in difficult circumstances. She is right that it is yet another example of where the climate crisis is not some theoretical future threat, but a present reality. We have to tackle the climate crisis as quickly as possible. That is why this Government are doing everything we can to get off of fossil fuels, while also investing in flood defences across the country.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

T7. The Minister will know that our peatlands are a vital store of carbon, storing 26 times more carbon than UK forests. Would he therefore agree that green energy projects built on peatland must prove that they will mitigate more carbon than they will release through construction and disturbance of the underlying peat? Will he commit to refuse any nationally significant infrastructure project that fails that test?

[Martin McCluskey]

While I cannot comment on specific planning decisions, I can reassure the hon. Member that the planning regime considers the importance of peat for biodiversity, water and carbon storage in decisions about renewable infrastructure, and there are existing protections for peatland habitats and deep peat in the national planning policy framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I know that Northamptonshire has a thriving retail and wholesale sector, and I commend my hon. Friend for championing the jobs and businesses in his constituency. He rightly says that the Conservatives promised to reform business rates. What he did not say was that they promised many times to reform business rates and never did so. We have committed to permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The Government are committed to publishing soon an interim report that sets out further details on the direction of travel, and confirmation of our plans will come at the autumn Budget.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I recently met the owners of Bababing in my constituency, who have opened up new premises in Keighley. They want to grow and expand as quickly as possible, but they told me that this Government are stifling business growth for not only Bababing but many other SMEs across the country due to the decisions they made in the Budget last year to increase employer national insurance and the minimum wage, and the Employment Rights Bill, which is coming down the line. Do the Government recognise that they are stifling growth, and if so, what are they doing about it?

[Gareth Thomas]

I welcome the establishment of Bababing in the hon. Member’s constituency. I recognise that difficult decisions had to be taken in the Budget. I am sure he has pointed out to the owners of Bababing that those difficult decisions were taken as a direct result of the £22 billion black hole that his party left us to tackle. Our small business strategy will set out a range of measures we are taking to support businesses, which I hope will help Bababing and other businesses in his constituency.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. Who better to open this debate than a Lincolnshire representative from a county that I know very well and which produces 30% of our vegetables, 20% of our sugar beet and, collectively, 12% of all of the food that we find on our shelves?

We have heard contributions from Members from all four nations of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. I represent the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley in God’s own county of Yorkshire, and we also have many producers and growers who have a relationship with supermarkets, and have been expressing their concern to me in advance of this debate.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator is hugely important in addressing some of the systematic issues within our food supply chain that have been referenced in the debate. It was set up under the coalition Government, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted. It manages only 14 retailers, which cover a vast swathe of the food market, but that does not go far enough. Competition puts huge pressures on our suppliers and growers further down the chain, which is why it is vital that the Groceries Code Adjudicator addresses unfair practices. The questions that have been raised in this debate are those of power, funding and resource.

In 2024, a survey run by the GCA reported a reduction in the number of groceries code issues and an increase in supplier satisfaction with retailers, where issues were raised. I question that report. All Members speaking in this debate have picked up on the fear among growers and producers of being blacklisted if concerns are raised, and a reluctance to even report, because of the huge pressure that can be put on them by the retailers.

The 14 retailers included in the scope of the GCA and the code of practice cover a significant proportion of the UK market. However, it misses a number of smaller but significant retailers. That is the point I want to build on, as mentioned by other Members today. Has the Minister considered reducing the £1 billion turnover threshold that marks the point where businesses must be compliant? If that threshold were removed, many more retailers would be brought into the fold of the GCA. Members have advocated for that in today’s debate.

The work of the GCA is important in maintaining the health of our supply chains. An unfair contract between a retailer and a producer or grower can be devastating. We have heard the points made in the debate—the challenges are huge. That can result in growers and producers being locked into unfair contracts. Orders can be cancelled unnecessarily. The Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), made a point early on in the debate about potatoes—they were of sufficient quality for any consumer to eat, and yet, because they did not meet the exact specification from the retailer, the order was not taken.

[Sir John Hayes]

I forgot to say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. My hon. Friend identifies a fundamental issue. In commercial transactions, there is always risk, and that risk needs to be balanced. At the moment, all the risk is taken by the farmer or grower and none of the risk is absorbed by the retailer. We need to adjust that balance to ensure fairness, in the way that has been articulated by so many Members across the Chamber.

[Robbie Moore]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. At the moment, the risk is all sitting on the shoulders of the growers and producers. That is unfair, because there is a certain expectation of the food they are preparing, whether in quantity or quality, but some of the risk factors are completely out of their control, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) noted. Those factors include weather conditions, which impact many of our farmers and growers. The lack of flexibility in the contracts is another.

That is why the GCA must have the teeth that many have talked about in this debate, because these issues go beyond the impacts of the unfair contract. At a time when pressures on our agricultural sector are mounting, additional budgetary pressures were announced by the Government in last year’s Budget. The hike in employer’s national insurance, the family farm tax, which has created a huge amount of uncertainty, the cuts to the sustainable farming incentives, and the drastic reduction in the delinked payments to a cap of £7,200 are all additional cash-flow pressures, exposing our farmers and growers to long-term uncertainty, beyond the challenges associated with the contracts they are entering into with retailers.

While the GCA has made hugely important steps, many producers and growers are still unaware of its role and powers. There is absolutely more work to be done within the industry to build awareness and trust of the GCA and its powers, and that is exactly what the nub of this debate is about. We know that pressures are mounting on the agricultural supply chains that run right the way through the system, from farm to fork. One of the shortcomings of the GCA in its current set-up is that it only handles the relationship between the retailer, the supplier and some farmers and growers, missing out many farmers, growers and other intermediaries in the supply chain. That has to be addressed, as has been referenced by many Members in their contributions.

That has to be addressed if we want to restore a level of trust in the system, and work to do so has been started. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 were introduced recently, which have a specific focus on milk, and regulations for other products are on their way. But I ask the Minister: what are we doing to address this disjointed approach? It seems that multiple regulators are managing different elements of the supply chain, which is creating more friction and uncertainty for businesses.

The experience of the last decade shows the growing case for better lines of communication between the GCA, DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. What conversations has the Minister, in his role representing the Department, had with DEFRA and the GCA? That was a point made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I congratulate him on the work he did in introducing his ten-minute rule Bill, which had the support of the Opposition.

Going forward, I hope that the Government will be able to pick up where the last Government left off and not only expand on the fair dealing regulations, but tie in the GCA and its operation to the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, providing a joined-up approach to the full supply chain. Although I welcome the increasing scope of regulatory framework on the agricultural supply chain, does the Minister plan to include other products, such as ornamentals, as part of an expanded GCA remit? Ornamentals, like food, are perishable and suffer with the same challenges that many Members have outlined in this debate.

What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to increasing the GCA’s powers, funding, resource and people power, so that it has the ability to enact the requests of both sides of this House? I reiterate that trust absolutely needs to be restored into the system, which can only be done by re-establishing better supply chain relationships throughout the system. That relies on giving the GCA more power, more finance and better lines of communication with DEFRA and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Whether it be the increase in the minimum wage, the increase in employer national insurance, the increase in business rates, or indeed the changes made to the Employment Rights Bill, all of these measures collectively are negatively penalising many businesses across my constituency, whether in Keighley, Ilkley or further afield. As a result, redundancies are having to be made, or the price of products and services are having to increase, and these businesses cannot absorb the additional increase that this Labour Government are putting on them. Did the Government undertake any economic impact assessment of what all of these measures collectively would have on hard-working businesses across my constituency?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As I have said to Conservative Members before, of course we are very sensitive to the aggregate impact of Government policy, because, frankly, having observed the Conservative Governments of the previous 14 years, I thought they completely missed this point and at many times had different Departments doing completely opposing things.

I want to say something specific on business rates. No business rates relief was planned had the Conservative party won the election. The reduction to 40% was an increase in what was in the national accounts—again, short-term decisions for short-term, partisan, political benefit; no serious plan for the future.

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the figures from the Insolvency Service this week, which are very interesting. They show that fewer people have been made redundant over the past 12 months than in the year before, so I am afraid that the doom-mongers of the Conservative party have been proved absolutely wrong by the statistics that we have.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. No parent should have to go through the upset and anguish of seeing their child diagnosed or suffering with a serious illness. Sadly, it is not within our power to prevent these terrible situations, but what is within our power as legislators is to provide support and reassurance to parents who end up in those traumatic situations. We can help ease not only the process, but the parents’ return to work at the end of their child’s treatment, or throughout the child’s treatment, should the individual circumstances permit.

We should remember that the workplace and being in work is often about more than just money, although of course money is very important. Work gives us a sense of purpose, belonging and normality. It can therefore be a terrible situation for a parent if they rather unexpectedly find themselves in the position of not only losing their job, but fearing for their child’s health. Sometimes, with care treatment plans being longer than expected, additional complexities may arise if the child is particularly unwell. Depending on the child’s illness, they may need to attend regular appointments at the hospital, sometimes more often than was originally envisaged, or there may be a dedicated treatment centre that is further than one may have initially realised. Therefore, the treatment and care that has to be provided by the parent is sometimes not known at the outset and can be particularly onerous.

Some children may need around-the-clock care and attention, with no other family member or friend to provide that additional care, or the parent may simply be the only person the child has to care for them. At the end of the treatment, whether it is successful or not, it can sometimes be incredibly difficult for the parent to return to the workplace. Indeed, the job may not be waiting for them at the end, ready for them to return to. The parent may struggle to get back into the jobs market at a cost to them, their children and the state.

Let us take the situation of Christina Harris, who started this petition and who, I am honoured to say, is with us in the Public Gallery. Indeed, I was honoured to meet Christina before the debate, and it is great to see her, her friends and her child, Skye, here. Skye was diagnosed during a Christmas period, and on the first day back to work, Christina was told that she would not be paid and was shocked to discover that she had no statutory protection to fall back on. Skye’s treatment, once diagnosed, was to take approximately two years. Although Christina’s employer could not provide her wages during the time that Christina was caring for Skye, her employer at least kept the role open to Christina while she was initially absent from work.

Six months in, Christina was asked to attend a meeting with her employer in which she felt that she was put in a very difficult position, and her employer was completely unwilling at the start to discuss the flexible working options. After another six months, Christina’s employment contract was terminated, despite her having provided 19 years’ of service to the same company, and obviously she still had to deal with Skye’s care. It is great to see that Skye is on the mend and returning to a good state of health. After a year of uncertainty, Christina was left taking part-time work to make ends meet while struggling with providing the care for Skye.

This situation is unlike any other regarding parenthood and work. Let us take the example of a parent having an accident; parents have access to bereavement leave. One of the better parts of the Employment Rights Bill that is going through this House includes a right to neonatal leave and pay, easing this exact issue for newborns, but not for older children. Even in the classic case of unplanned pregnancy affecting a career, parents still have nine months to prepare, but a child can become ill at a moment’s notice and through no fault of the parents or the child. Despite that, however, the options for support are incredibly limited, which is why the petition is before the House.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The hon. Member pointed out some of the increased employment rights that we should see under the Employment Rights Bill. In the previous Parliament, there was no employment rights Bill, but private Members’ Bills did improve the situation in part: the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 on flexible, working promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and my Carer’s Leave Act 2023. That suggests we need more support for parents—paid carer’s leave—so that people like Christina do not suffer in the way that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has outlined.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. That absolutely highlights the importance of why the petition needs to be considered by the Government and the Minister of the day. The Employment Rights Bill that is working its way through the House includes some positive measures. Potentially, this petition is an additional thought that the Minister should consider, given the strength of feeling shown through the number of people who have signed it.

In the vast majority of cases, these situations are completely unexpected. As I said, who knows when a child is going to become seriously ill? A diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue and a parent has to deal with it.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

The hon. Member has brought to mind the occasion when my youngest son, after playing rugby, was diagnosed with a suspected brain tumour. As I live in the middle of nowhere, in Somerset and Devon, the flashing-blue ambulance took two and a half hours to get to the nearest children’s specialist unit. This is not just about losing a job or the wages; it is the enormous stress and anxiety it puts on parents, particularly in rural areas such as mine. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. That highlights the associated challenges for parents, and not only the financial ones that can unexpectedly be put on them, but the emotional challenges and anxiety-related issues. Whether the scenario involves a short-term care plan being put in place or something much longer, that anxiety is absolutely there and needs to be recognised.

As I was saying, a diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue, and a parent, of course, has to deal with it. They have no other choice but to make the situation work, and that can be incredibly difficult. Complexities will arise in the care programme of the child, no doubt, and it will be emotionally draining for all involved, but the parent has to get on with it. This injustice certainly resonates across the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges and issues. It was great to meet Christina and Skye before the debate started. Does my hon. Friend recognise that many employers follow good practice, paying parents during a time of care and keeping jobs open, but the petitioner and I are concerned about those employers who are not following good practice? That, I hope, is what the Government will address.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not all employers sing from the same hymn sheet by providing that good level of support and care to their employees while they are going through very traumatic situations. Some employers are very good, but not all carry out the same level of care for their employees during such difficult situations.

That is why Christina’s petition has been so well recognised in the amount of support that it gained, gathering 102,316 signatures. In my Keighley and Ilkley constituency, I have received many pieces of correspondence on this issue, and it can be harrowing—as a Member of Parliament, as I am sure all of us have done this—listening to some of the very real challenges that parents face in such situations, including the financial, support and emotional challenges.

In support, the Petitions Committee carried out its survey on the back of Christina’s petition, asking people who had signed it how the severe illness of children affects them as parents. I am thankful to the 9,609 people who submitted a response to the Petitions Committee as part of our review of the petition. The huge response rate to not only the petition, but the follow-up demonstrates just how much of an issue this is, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly to some of the concerns that have been raised. The survey suggests that the majority of parents affected do manage to cope with the challenge, but crucially, this is only possible for those who have understanding and accommodating employers, as has been mentioned.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I recently spoke to my constituent Kat from Hassocks, whose son Teddy has battled life-threatening neuroblastoma since July 2022. Kat told me that although her employer went above and beyond to support her, she is the exception and not the rule. With many employers either not able or not willing to do so, does the hon. Member agree that it is unacceptable for there to be—in Kat’s words—“a total lottery” regarding whether parents of seriously ill children receive employment support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

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

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene a second time. It is right that we acknowledge employers who are doing this well. I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of Carers UK. That organisation runs an important network that shares good practice among employers, and I urge any constituents who have signed the petition to get their employers linked in with it.

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member must have read my speech, because I will come later to the importance of all employers and employees being aware of the rights that already exist. There are a number of protection measures out there. The challenge is that employers and employees do not necessarily know what support is available.

Through the survey conducted by the Petitions Committee, we can see, as in Christina’s case, that when an employer is less flexible—or outright unhelpful, as we have seen in certain circumstances—things quickly get worse. Some 99% of respondents believed that employers should be required to provide career breaks for parents of terminally ill children. What Christina and thousands of other people are calling out for is statutory reassurance that, as soon as they are able to go back to work, the job will be available for them, at least for a limited period.

That reassurance—that as soon as treatment is complete, life can go back to normal—is hugely important for the parents’ mental health and to help them plan their future financial situation. Many families can afford to take a short-term hit to care for their child, although not all can, and they cannot do so without a guaranteed time period within which they can get back into the workplace at the end of that employment break. That is why I reiterate the importance of the petition.

The key point about reassurance was raised with me by It’s Never You, a charity run by two individuals who care deeply about the issue because they suffered the tragic loss of their own child from the terrible illness of cancer in 2021. When I met them, they passionately explained that getting support in place from day one is a major issue. For the first 90 days after a child has been diagnosed with a terrible illness, parents have to go through an incredible amount of restructuring in their life, so having their employer’s support from day one is vital. As employers themselves, those individuals are all too aware of the burden that a statutory requirement for a career break would have on smaller businesses, but they correctly highlighted to me that the lack of any Government-directed standard or benchmark is a recipe for chaos—and, as has already been indicated, many employers and employees do not necessarily know what level of support is available when a child is diagnosed with a serious illness.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

We have heard so many stories of individuals who lost their jobs as a result of taking time off due to having seriously ill children, adding stress to an already unbearable situation. We have heard stories of good employers and not-so-good employers. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that we understand the extent of the situation, and that the Government should commission research into the number of families impacted each year? If we had more information, that would help us to determine the best solution.

[Robbie Moore]

I always agree that it is fine in this place for us to be designing guidance, regulations or indeed other legislation, but unless it practically works and has the positive impact it was designed to have, it benefits no one. More datasets and data collected and available to Government to help them make the right decisions is always welcome. I endorse the hon. Lady’s point.

Employers and their employees often struggle to come to an acceptable arrangement, as the group It’s Never You has indicated, so it is important that the Government outline the support that is already available to those employees and employers, whether that is a break or flexible working. We should also be encouraging businesses to think outside the box, as highlighted to me by the Rainbow Trust and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development when I was preparing for this debate. They told me that flexible working is vital; for the parent of a sick child with complex needs, it is so important that flexible working, or part-time work, can be put in place. But, as many employers said to me during my preparation for this debate, although good employers do as much as they can to facilitate the needs of a parent with a seriously ill child, not every job environment allows flexible working to take place. That has to be recognised.

One problem that was raised by all the parties I spoke to about this issue was just how long it can take for support, such as carer’s allowance, to kick in. Again, we come back to the crucial first 90 days, a period that is in part defined by how long it takes state aid to arrive. In those 90 days, parents can feel completely lost when it comes to knowing their rights and how they can use those rights to ease their situation. Businesses may be just as ignorant of the rights and support mechanisms actually available, and time spent researching that, once a challenge has been put to them by a parent with a seriously ill child, can delay support being put in place. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that, through the best means possible, employers are well equipped with the right amount of support, and that their rights and those of employees are laid out.

My first question, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer today, is: how will the Government ensure that employees are aware of their rights before a crisis is put before them; and how often are employers made aware of the obligations on them? Secondly, what work are the Government undertaking to ensure that support such as carer’s allowance is delivered as quickly as possible? For many families, their income can drop to zero overnight, and reaching the end of the first month can be the greatest challenge. With a doctor’s note or an employment record, it should not be difficult to determine the truth of an applicant’s status.

Finally, the key point, which has been reiterated throughout the evidence given to me in preparation for this debate, is that the most important change is about giving certainty to struggling families, to allow them to get through and recover quickly from these terrible ordeals. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are looking at providing some clarity through statutory requirements for the provision of career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. We know from the work undertaken on neonatal complications that the Government are open to the concept, so what logical reason can there be for this support to end with an arbitrary cut-off, based on the age of the child?

I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the contributions that are made in this debate. I thank Christina and the more than 100,000 signatories who have provided support for this debate to happen in this House. I also thank everyone who contributed to the work of the Petitions Committee in preparation for this debate and those who responded to the survey undertaken by the Petitions Committee. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

To sum up, I first want to thank Christina, because without her and the circumstances she has brought to our attention, we would not have had the petition, the over 100,000 signatures that have attached themselves to it and therefore this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank not only Christina but Skye for their absolute courage and endeavour throughout the incredibly difficult challenges that they and their family have had, and for enabling us to bring this debate forward.

This has been a really robust debate—in the politest of senses—in terms of the subjects that have been covered. There has been real recognition of the fact that more data needs to be collected so that we can ensure that the legislation being introduced by Government is practically workable on the ground. We have also covered off the fact that not every employer is necessarily doing the right thing in terms of their own obligations. It is good to see that the Government have recognised that more work needs to be done to make sure that each employer and employee knows their obligations to one another so that, should the difficult circumstances arise where a child is ill, the employer will put out the best protection as quickly as possible to meet their employee’s needs.

I reiterate that there is space potentially to improve the Employment Rights Bill, based on the concerns raised throughout the debate. It is good to hear that the Minister—through my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—has guaranteed a meeting. Let all those who signed the petition be well aware that a meeting will follow this debate, and we can only hope that there will be good outcomes from it.

My final point is that, where carers are permitted to have carer’s allowance, they should not have to wait for an end-of-life prognosis for the payment to be fast-tracked. The Government machinery should be able to operate much more quickly, so that the carer of any child who is ill can get the allowance as quickly as possible—certainly within the 90-day period, and not at the last minute.

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed, and I thank those in the Gallery—Christina, Skye and their friend—for attending the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce the two e-petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Like me, many colleagues will have received countless pieces of correspondence regarding fireworks, so it is no surprise that both e-petitions received significant numbers of signatures. The first received more than 50,000 signatures in the first six months. I particularly thank Chloe Brindley for creating the petition, and for her elegant arguments for banning the sale of fireworks to the general public. Chloe outlines many of the negative impacts of firework use, including animal stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the impact on our A&E services. Chloe is in the Public Gallery today.

The second e-petition was kindly brought to the attention of the House by Alan Smith, whom I was privileged to meet last week, and I am pleased is also in the Gallery. It is a pleasure to welcome him to the House. The petition garnered more than 75,000 signatures, despite being created only a month ago. Alan’s story is particularly harrowing but, given that we are considering the terrible and traumatic damage that fireworks can do, it is an important one, and I hope he will not mind my mentioning it.

On the night of 28 October 2021, two teenagers, who were under age, went to their local fireworks shop and asked, “What are the good ones to let off at people?” They were not refused service, nor did the owner of the shop ask them for identification. Later that evening, they would take the fireworks they had purchased and stuff them, lit, through the letterbox of 88-year-old Josephine Smith, Alan’s mother, starting a fire that went on to kill her. Not only was that a shocking tragedy and an outrageous, harrowing act, but it shows, without a shadow of doubt, that fireworks are not toys and are not risk-free. If used in that manner, they are weapons that can kill.

Whether through accident or malice, 113 people find themselves spending an average of two days in hospital because of fireworks injuries, and research suggests that the total number of injuries is higher. However, fireworks have impacts far wider than those on the users, as the petitions’ signatories will know. Excessively loud bangs and flashes from fireworks can make the surrounding area feel like a warzone. In Keighley, which I am exceptionally proud to represent, fireworks are used throughout the year, often well into the early hours of the morning. There are times when the night sky above Keighley is lit up under the constant thunder of fireworks. The use of fireworks may peak around and in the run-up to bonfire night, but for many of us it is an issue throughout the whole calendar year. In places such as Keighley, and in many other communities right across the country, many are negatively impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks. Working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep cannot, because of the sheer nuisance caused by fireworks.

Unsurprisingly, fireworks have a dramatic effect on those who suffer from PTSD. Our veterans may quite literally fear that they have been thrust back into a life-or-death situation, and can be completely debilitated by their use. Other victims of trauma can be triggered even if the event that led to their condition has no connection to the sounds or sights of fireworks. I heard that at first hand just last week, when I met representatives of Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Firework Campaign to prepare for this debate. I thank them for their time.

As with humans, fireworks can also trigger the fight-or-flight response in animals. Pets and livestock alike are often terrified by fireworks, and unlike us they do not understand the consequences when they are let off. Of course, that leads not only to incredible distress but, in some circumstances, to the injury or death of animals. I have heard in correspondence from across my Keighley and Ilkley constituency of farm animals stampeding as a result of loud bangs, tearing through fences in their panic, injuring themselves and others, and being at risk of causing road accidents. I have also heard much about dogs, cats and rabbits—in fact, almost every single kind of pet—being negatively impacted.

In November, we learned of the tragic death of Roxie, a baby red panda at Edinburgh Zoo. She died on bonfire night due to the stress caused by fireworks being let off throughout the city centre. We must also be conscious of wildlife who do not have a voice but are nevertheless affected. We often forget them but, as those animals are more sensitive to sound than us, they are also impacted considerably. What we hear as a distant rumble can seem to them like a much more threatening, intense experience.

Distressing fireworks are used as tools for crimes in my constituency and throughout the country, as many colleagues have told me. Fireworks are used as weapons against emergency services and as nuisance items in antisocial behaviour by youths. In 2021, firefighters attended an incident in my constituency and came under attack by a group of 15 youths hurling fireworks at them. The fact that the individuals were able to source the fireworks to carry out those acts was incredibly distressing, not only because of those who were impacted but because it shows how easy it is to get hold of fireworks.

Fireworks have many more impacts, not least causing hearing damage, interrupting sleep and affecting those with sensory processing disorders. I hope Members will forgive me when I say that I and others have raised these concerns before. I take this opportunity to stress that I am absolutely still concerned about this issue.

Before I discuss the way forward, it is important to mention the existing body of regulations. The sale of fireworks is banned to anyone under the age of 18, and for the largest fireworks for public use, but that does not stop people buying them, and it does not stop individuals selling them to under-18s. Setting off any firework is also banned after 11 pm, except on certain evenings, but I fear that, as in the case of Josephine Smith, the regulations are not being properly followed, as we all know.

I recognise that e-petition 639319 calls for a ban. Indeed, along with those who signed the petition, some 74% of people more widely who have got involved with the many fireworks petitions to come before the House believe that a ban is the right way forward. I must admit that, personally, I am reluctant to endorse bans when they are not completely necessary, but there is growing evidence, including testimony from the many people I spoke to in the run-up to the debate and from police incidents, that enforcement will never be enough to tackle this issue. Simply put, once those who let off fireworks as part of antisocial behaviour have abandoned the scene, it is extremely difficult to catch the culprits.

Of course, we must recognise the freedom to enjoy fireworks, but above all else we must protect the liberties of those who are so devastatingly affected, because there is certainly no freedom for those who are trapped in their homes throughout the year because of fireworks misuse. If the illegal use of fireworks cannot be curtailed, the only option we are left with is stricter regulation at the point of sale. Although it may be difficult to catch an offender using fireworks, it is surely easier for authorities to ensure that regulations are followed at the point of sale, and to advise fireworks businesses to use discretion when they fear that fireworks may be used improperly.

In a report published this morning, the campaigner Hamza Rehman highlighted the rise in the stockpiling of fireworks across the Bradford district, with fireworks being bought in bulk and stored in private garages to be sold at a later date. I have no doubt that the same is going on in other constituencies throughout the country, and that it could be curtailed if we enforced the laws that are already in place. Even a simple requirement to apply for a permit may be a sufficient barrier to cancel out many nuisance buyers of fireworks, who can currently purchase fireworks as easily as they can a bottle of wine.

Stricter requirements could also be introduced, such as raising the age limit. None the less, we must be careful not to force the sale of fireworks underground and create an even more dangerous situation. I hope that in the debate many other Members will get to the heart of the issue and explore the action we can take, as this issue has been idly discussed for far too long. I know that many Members have raised it in the House time and again.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this really important debate. Like his constituents, mine next door in Shipley have raised concerns about antisocial fireworks. Under the last Labour Government, the Fireworks Act 2003 and the Fireworks Regulations 2004 were introduced to restrict the antisocial use of fireworks; since then, there has been very little action. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a review to tighten up the regulations is long overdue?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my constituency neighbour and friend for raising that issue. The challenge is that although previous Labour Administrations introduced regulations, the stark reality on the ground is that there has been no real change. There is still antisocial behaviour, the misuse of fireworks and people getting away with buying fireworks—in my constituency, and I suspect in the hon. Lady’s—when they are under the age of 18. Having seen the Government’s response to both e-petitions, released earlier today, I do not believe they are willing to go far enough, albeit they have said they are willing to listen. I hope Members will contribute in respect of the actions the Government should take.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this subject. My constituent Annie Riddle has lived in the Harnham district of Salisbury for 34 years, and her four dogs have been left in the state of trembling wrecks as a consequence of the random use of fireworks. Does my hon. Friend agree that better public education on just how destructive the use of fireworks is to the health of many people—he mentioned veterans, for example—and to the animal kingdom is important to changing behaviours on the ground? That must be part of the solution.

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. Better education is critical for the wider public—for not only those behaving antisocially but those organising large events. As part of the evidence taken before this debate, I heard that even big public events have a negative consequence on pets at home, wildlife, farm animals, or veterans living nearby. Education is key but, personally, I would like to see tougher licensing provisions and much more resource put into enforcement.

I commend the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for bringing forward a private Member’s Bill aimed at tackling this issue. In my opinion, the next step forward must be a commitment from the Government to undertake proper research into and impact assessments of firework regulation, so that we can reach a cross-party solution to the issue. Findings from the Petitions Committee, the Government and stakeholders have all pointed out that a lack of evidence limits any serious policy changes. We must therefore ensure that the Government have the evidence available as quickly as possible so that they can make further legislative changes, if they so desire.

If a ban or restrictions are necessary, they will take time to implement, so we must also take immediate action. Local councils must be supported to deliver proper enforcement immediately, as must the police to tackle those using fireworks illegally. There is no point in having regulations and laws in place if they are not enforced. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the Government from delivering that support right now.

E-petition 639319 received a response from the previous Government, and I am glad that the current Government responded this morning to e-petition 700013. But as I said, the Government must go much further than just giving warm words. I hope this debate will be an opportunity for all Members to stress to the Minister the points they wish to make on behalf of their constituents, and that the Minister will be able to expand on that in his response. I am sure he will appreciate that this issue is of deep concern to the many petitioners who signed the petitions.

I am not opposed to fireworks in and of themselves, but I definitely wish to see much tighter licensing provisions, much stronger enforcement and a change so that fireworks can be used only at licensed events. I say to the Government that we simply cannot continue to ignore the growing public demand for change. I hope this debate marks the beginning of real change on fireworks legislation. Fireworks bring joy to many, but their misuse can have devastating effects. When used antisocially, they disturb the peace of an entire neighbourhood, terrify pets and leave vulnerable people trapped in their homes. The culprits terrorise neighbourhoods, as unfortunately I have seen in Keighley.

The petitions are not one-offs—indeed, since May 2022 five other petitions relating to fireworks have been put before Parliament—nor are the concerns of the petitioners without justification. In the face of such concerns, there must be action, and that cannot occur until we have had the weight of a full Government policy assessment to decide the best way forward. I fear that if we choose to continue to ignore this issue, there will inevitably be more unnecessary deaths, injuries and traumas for victims of fireworks in the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, let me say how grateful we are to Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith for very kindly bringing forward the petitions, which gathered so much support in a relatively short period—thank you. I also extend my condolences once again to Alan, who is in the Public Gallery, for the tragic circumstances in which his mother lost her life.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We have heard from Members from across the country—from Glasgow and Edinburgh right the way down to Luton and, of course, from Keighley and Ilkley. Our constituents contact us about this issue because when fireworks are misused, they impact us all—parents with a newborn, working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep, veterans suffering anxiety issues, and pets and wildlife.

Everyone who spoke mentioned the challenging circumstances around antisocial behaviour. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) said eloquently, fireworks are explosives that can be purchased. A common theme of all Members’ speeches was that we must push the Government for stronger licensing, noise reduction and restrictions on sale, and for more enforcement powers to be given to our police and local authorities so that they can properly enforce the existing legislation and anything that comes down the line.

It is my duty, on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the petitioners, to urge the Government to act. We heard very kind words from the Minister—he said the Government are listening and reviewing, and he summarised the existing legislation—but we want the Government to go much further on the five points that have been raised. We urge the Government and the Minister to have further exchanges with the petitioners and Members from throughout the House, and I hope they will listen to the points that Members made very strongly today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.