Fuel Duty

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is good to speak in this debate on a subject that is impacting on all our hard-working businesses, families, hauliers and those involved in the logistics industry—the rise in fuel duty.

It is clear that Labour is planning to put up fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Despite the conflict in the middle east, which is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, we have a Chancellor who said in her spring statement that this Labour Government have “the right economic plan” and boasted that households would be better off. She is doubling down on her plan to hike fuel duty, fund more welfare handouts and scrap the two-child benefit cap. That is not benefiting the grafters who are driving local economic growth across our constituencies. That is why increasing fuel duty for the first time in 15 years is such a negative approach, and it is impacting on all those across our constituencies.

[Melanie Ward]

rose—

[Robbie Moore]

Last autumn, my constituent Lesley O’Brien got in touch with me with serious concerns about the ramifications of any potential fuel duty hikes on the road haulage sector. As well as being a trustee of the Road Haulage Association and the founder of the transport forum Freight People, Lesley is the joint managing director of Freightlink Europe, a haulage company based in my constituency in West Yorkshire. It is a traditional, family-run business, based on the core values of honesty, respect and a dedication to provide the best level of service to customers.

However, businesses such as Freightlink Europe, and the hard-working people who run them and are employed by them, face unprecedented difficulties. Many haulage companies and those involved in logistics have contacted me directly with their deep concerns. Through no fault of their own, the average profit margin for many of those businesses has been significantly reduced to only 2%, if not lower, and the cost of running a typical haulage business has increased by more than 22% in recent years.

[Melanie Ward]

I wanted to respond to the point that the hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. He said something to the effect that the people who would benefit from our Government lifting the two-child benefit cap were not grafters. Does he not agree that the people who will benefit from the two-child benefit cap being lifted are children who were living in poverty, and that the majority of the households that those children live in are, in fact, in work? They are grafters.

[Robbie Moore]

My firm view is that the Government should be supporting all of those individuals to drive economic growth across the country. By removing the two-child cap, the Government are saying to those families who have worked out what their household spending power will be over a long period of time, “If you want to have more than two children, the Government will step in and pay for you.” That negatively impacts hard-working families that have made those hard fiscal decisions throughout. The reality is that increasing the level of welfare spending by taxing businesses such as those across my constituency—those involved in the haulage industry and the logistics sector that will now see a hike in the price of fuel—negatively impacts those who are driving economic growth, and therefore impacts everybody.

[Tom Hayes]

I think the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) was making is that, contrary to what the hon. Member said, the majority of parents of children who are disadvantaged by the two-child benefit cap are working. They are grafters; they are the hon. Member’s constituents, who are often working multiple jobs just to make ends meet in the difficult cost of living crisis that we inherited. Surely he is not calling the parents who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, including his constituents, workshy.

[Robbie Moore]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not turned up to this debate—a debate on an incredibly important issue that is impacting all of our constituents, including his—in good enough time to make a speech on the fuel duty increase, but wants to turn the debate back to a point that I answered in my response to the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). That point still stands. If the Government increase taxes on the hard-working businesses and individuals across the country who want to drive economic growth in order to benefit only a very few people, they are not providing opportunity for many young people and hard-working families across all our communities.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Back when we were in government, one of the ways we tried to solve this problem was by changing the universal credit cut-off limit from 63% to 55%, which meant that the more work people did, the more money they kept. That is exactly the way to support people back into work: making sure that they keep more of their own money. That incentivises work, rather than disincentivising it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an ideological difference here? We support work; the other option is just a handout.

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. By taxing families and individuals less, we provide them with more money in their pockets and we drive economic growth, as they have more of their own domestic spending power.

This Labour Government want to hit many businesses and individuals with three consecutive fuel duty hikes in a matter of months. If these proposals go ahead, motorists and haulage companies face being hit with the biggest tax burden in years. The road haulage industry is critical to our nation’s economic success: goods are moved around daily, and logistics are key to keeping our country moving. Everything we eat, drink, wear and consume depends on road haulage services—on companies such as Freightlink Europe. Road freight moves 81% of all goods, and 98% of all agricultural and food products are moved around the country by road haulage.

The Road Haulage Association estimates that a 5p rise in fuel duty will result in a typical motor vehicle-owning household spending an extra £100 each year and increase annual household spending by £1.9 billion, which is a whopping £7.3 billion over the rest of this Parliament. In my eyes, that is a significant additional tax burden for this Government to put on those households. At a time when the conflict in the middle east is pushing up inflation and the cost of petrol at the pump, it is beyond belief that Labour wants to push ahead with this fuel duty hike.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to highlight the choices that people living in rural constituencies such as mine are making. In Coldstream, the price of diesel per litre has gone up from £1.41 to £1.69 over the past few days. That is a huge increase, but because of the prospective tax rise that is coming down the line from the Labour Government, constituents tell me that they are looking at jobs and considering their alternatives, because they have to drive to get to work. A constituent who has been offered a new job that is further away, and who will have to drive further to get to it, is thinking about turning it down because once the 5p fuel duty increase comes in, he will not be able to get to his job.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come on to the additional challenges in rural areas, but he makes a clear and concise point: if people have to travel further for a job opportunity, they are going to be taxed more by this Labour Government. That is on top of the Labour Government removing the rural services delivery grant that was providing additional support to many local authorities operating in rural communities. We clearly have a Government who are not interested in supporting our rural communities. Of course, this fuel duty hike comes on top of the increase in employer national insurance contributions and business rates. It will impact our care workers, our district nurses and our hospice sector, all of which are also impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions.

At a local level across the Bradford district, we face an additional tax burden: the clean air zone, which was rolled out several years ago. A taxi driver with a non-compliant vehicle who wants to travel into Bradford—an area that we all want to see grow and thrive economically—faces a daily charge of £7 to do so. A white van driver is charged £9 daily to go into Bradford, and someone operating a bus or a heavy goods vehicle is charged £50 a day to do so, as a result of the choices that Labour-run Bradford council has made.

Labour-run Bradford council has received £20 million from collecting this additional tax from our hard-working businesses over the period that the clean air zone has been in force across Bradford. It is something that I am firmly opposed to. Bradford council will say that it is going to spend this money wisely across the district, but based on a freedom of information request that I submitted to Bradford council, I can contradict that narrative. As of 2023, just £4.1 million of all highways spending was spent within the Keighley and Ilkley constituency over a six-year period. To put that in context, the spending in Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South was £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million respectively. That illustrates that there is no fairness in how Bradford council spends the money it is collecting from my hard-working constituents across Keighley and Ilkley.

[Tom Hayes]

Which of the five recent Conservative Prime Ministers gave Bradford council the right to introduce a clean air zone?

[Robbie Moore]

The right to roll out a clean air zone was given to local authorities, enabling them to make that decision, but some local authorities have refused to do so. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, decided not to roll out a clean air zone—that is an example of a Labour administration at a local level making the right decision on this issue. Labour-run Bradford council, however, decided to impose an additional tax on hard-working motorists across the Bradford district. As a result, places in my constituency such as East Morton face increased traffic congestion, road usage and speeding in the areas outside the clean air zone, where motorists try to take different roads to avoid any additional charge.

Rural communities will also be hard hit, as has been rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). Many of those businesses are in our farming community, which has already been hit by additional cash-flow implications. One point that has not been raised in this debate so far is the increase in red diesel prices, which have spiked by 60% in the last month alone, as supplies remain tight. From the research I have done, red diesel has increased up to an average of 109p a litre in March, up from 67p a litre in February. Farming businesses are reporting being quoted a variety of prices in the past month, ranging from 100p a litre to 135p a litre. That is a significant increase from the 67p a litre we saw just last month.

Several farmers are rightly querying why red diesel prices appear to have increased much more rapidly than road diesel and petrol prices. What meetings is the Minister having with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers specifically on red diesel, which is having an impact right now on the cash flow of many of our hard-working farmers? That is in addition to delinked payments dramatically dropping, the chop and change over the sustainable farming incentive, and the uncertainty that this Government are creating for many of those working within our farming community, and that is on top of fertiliser prices going up.

The Prime Minister said earlier this week that he will always support working people, but what does that say to those hard-working people across the country and across Keighley and Ilkley, such as Lesley O’Brien, who I mentioned earlier? Businesses and employers face bigger and bigger hurdles the longer this Labour Government are in power. Three consecutive rises in fuel duty is an insult to hard-working people across this country. The Prime Minister and this Government need to get a grip, back our hard-working businesses and show some empathy to those concerns consistently being raised by Opposition Members. It is disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, that we have not heard one Labour Back Bencher contribution in an incredibly important debate on fuel duty.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I speak today not just as a Member of this House, but as someone who has lived with the reality of a disability in my own family. I grew up with a sister who has a learning disability. Later in life, she also faced the brutal challenge of cancer. I have seen for myself the emotional toll, the complexity of care, and the financial pressures that came with that journey—pressures that were not self-inflicted, or in any way her fault.

I have also seen at first hand how PIP can be a lifeline for many people working in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, helping them to avoid total reliance on the state. For my constituent Shane, this support is “the fragile scaffolding” on which his life and work currently depend. All these experiences have shaped my own principles, including the need to take personal responsibility, to have a moral duty to support those who genuinely cannot support themselves and to follow the foundational principle that people in exactly the same situation should be treated the same before the law. This Bill breaks those principles.

Under Labour’s current plans, someone like Shane, or my sister, Becky, will be treated completely differently by the state, not due to their willingness to work, but based on a completely arbitrary cut-off date, currently being forced through by Ministers in Whitehall. If the Bill passes, someone in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, newly diagnosed with a learning disability, cancer or other life-changing condition in late 2026, will get thousands of pounds less in support than someone in identical circumstances today.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The hon. Member is giving a great speech. He highlights the ridiculous two-tier system that the Government are setting up, whereby it is fine for existing claimants but not fine for future claimants. My North Cornwall constituents, Dennis and Jill from Bude, already face a similar two-tier system: they do not qualify for the carer’s allowance because they are of pensionable age. Does he agree that we should be expanding the system rather than narrowing it?

[Robbie Moore]

I am sure that Dennis and Jill will be looking at the debate carefully and understanding clearly the issue of fairness, which is at the heart of what this legislation addresses. As I have explained, it is a scenario that Shane, in my constituency, is experiencing: he is able to receive PIP today, but someone in a similar circumstance to him will not be able to receive it after late 2026. That is not fair.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Lauren, from my constituency, is a bright and determined 16-year-old young woman, who has just completed her GCSEs and came to do work experience in my office. She has cerebral palsy and is applying for PIP not because she wants a handout, but because she knows that she will need support to live independently and pursue a career and life ambitions that will probably bring her to this place at some point, if she gets her way. Does the hon. Member agree that young disabled people deserve clarity and dignity, and that this Bill is not giving them that?

[Robbie Moore]

This Bill gives no clarity or dignity to the many people such as the constituent the hon. Lady kindly mentions, or those in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. That is why I do not support a plan that creates such a two-tier system, which now seems to be the hallmark of this Labour Government and goes against the very principle of fairness.

Let us not forget exactly why we are here: these changes are being pushed through at pace, at the eleventh hour, without proper evidenced reasoning for the new cut-off date. That is not the kind of detailed policy making that we expect from our leaders.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s proposals are creating the worst of both worlds? On one hand, they are failing to tackle the rising welfare budget, but on the other they are creating anxiety and fear among many disabled and vulnerable people, who do not understand or know the impact of these changes on them?

[Robbie Moore]

That is the nub of why there is so much concern that has been consistently raised by all Members on the Conversative Benches, and many on the Government Benches as well, who, dare I say, are considering how they will vote later.

No one doubts that our welfare system, which is set to exceed £100 billion by 2030, needs reform. If we continue to follow the Chancellor’s strategy of recklessly borrowing, which will have the same negative implications on PIP, some of the poorest in society who feel the biggest impact of any financial crisis will be exposed.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Thus far, I have kept out of this debate, probably for the wrong reason, but my wife has been disabled for 26 years and is in receipt of PIP. Although I became an MP in 2017, as a family, we were deeply grateful for the support. My wife is an honest lady—I hope I do not embarrass her by saying that—and she would have been delighted to have been consulted about PIP, as set out by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft). She would have put her thoughts down on paper, and I am sure that many recipients of PIP would have said, “Yes, we will try to see if we can help to get the budget straight in some way.” That way, the Government would take people with them; that is important and we are missing that.

[Robbie Moore]

Trust is at the heart of the issue, and if we want to create a system that commands public trust, this is not the way to do it. We need to reward effort and promote self-reliance, but the Bill creates a two-tier system detached from individual responsibility. We need to make the welfare system more targeted, but the Bill, like many Government policies, simply shifts new costs on to people who will genuinely be ill, newly disabled or simply younger and does little to target those relying on the state.

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Member talks about fairness and trust. I wonder if he is proud of his Government’s record, where Tory cuts to welfare pushed more people into poverty, with 2.9 million emergency food parcels in the last 12 months. If he votes against the Bill, he will be voting against the biggest uplift in the UC standard allowance. Is he proud of that?

[Robbie Moore]

I will take no lectures from somebody who supported a 10% rise in council tax across the Bradford district, impacting many of those who will be impacted by PIP.

This is not principled reform, it is not radical and it is not good policy making—and many Labour Members know it. The Government can and should be doing better. I will not support the Bill.

Winter Fuel Payment

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and, in particular, for her hard work to drive take-up of pension credit. Forget winter fuel payments—pension credit is a really important lifeline for low-income pensioners. It is worth an average of £4,000 to those receiving it, and far too many are missing out. I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and I hope that it continues.

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

Today’s U-turn is an astonishing victory against the Government, whose support has dried up after less than a year in office. When the Government announced their cruel cut to the winter fuel payment, costing 64,000 Bradford district pensioners vital support, experts across the country warned that up to 4,000 lives could be at risk as people were forced to choose between heating and eating. Now that the majority of the winter fuel payment has been restored, do the Government dare to produce a figure for how many pensioners may have lost their life as a result of the Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel allowance?

[Torsten Bell]

That is a serious matter. There are poorer households, with people of all ages, that have been struggling with energy bills in recent years. I am sure that all of us across this House want to see those problems addressed. We have also seen increases in food prices over the last few years that are higher than we would like, and it is lower-income households that spend a higher proportion of their budget on essentials such as food, energy and housing. It is the policy of this Government to ensure that we are dealing with all those issues.

Support for Pensioners

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

[Blake Stephenson]

Indeed, the winter fuel allowance is one example of many broken promises. I know that my constituents feel let down by this Labour Government, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising some pertinent examples from his constituency.

Where do we go from here? Well, I am here to help the Government with some simple ways in which they can help our pensioners.

Agricultural Property Relief

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this incredibly important debate.

Here we are yet again, having summoned yet another Minister to the House. We have slowly worked our way through all the DEFRA Ministers, and now here we are with the Treasury. I welcome the new Treasury Minister to his place; he is replacing the Farming Minister, who seems to have disappeared from these debates. I hope the new Treasury Minister lasts longer in his post than the infamous “Ed Stone”, which he was so proud to have masterminded.

Let us remember why we are here. Last weekend, the NFU’s farming day of unity saw one of the biggest agricultural rallies, which took place in all parts of the United Kingdom, with people from all walks of life coming together to support our farmers. That followed protests outside supermarkets and Westminster, and at auction marts, but still the Government refuse to get behind our farming community and listen. Let them be under no illusion: the strength of feeling outside this place is rightly strong, and the issue will not go away.

When the Government announced this policy, I thought they were just being naive. Then I thought they were perhaps being arrogant. Now the only conclusion I can come to is that this is a vindictive policy aimed at our farming community. That is because the Government are still unwilling to listen to the concerns raised by Members and stakeholders, whether that be the NFU, the CLA or the Tenant Farmers Association. The Chancellor is yet to engage with any of them.

Although the Government will no doubt claim that only affect 27% of farms will be affected, research conducted by those industry experts concludes that at least 75% of commercial family farms will be, because the £1 million threshold will impact the many. This disconnect stems from significant flaws in the Government’s methodology, which fails to account for the many market conditions and economic realities that our farming businesses face.

Given that the average size of a farm is about 200 acres, the average value of a farm holding will without doubt be well in excess of the £1 million threshold. When we take into account the value of the farmland; the farmhouse, and potentially a cottage or two; and any stocks, machinery or growing crops that may be in store, it will exceed the £1 million cap, therefore impacting the farming business. When we take into account the profit that a business may be making—or indeed struggling to make—on an average-sized farm of 200 acres, it is going to struggle to pay that bill.

What do farmers do? What are the options available to them? They can sell assets to pay the inheritance tax bill, or they can sell some of the livestock or some of the machinery, stocks or crops that may be in store, all impacting the productivity of that farming unit. Alternatively, they may want to take out a loan, which is an option suggested by the Government. I do not know whether the Treasury Minister has spoken to any banks, but I have, and none of them is saying that they will offer a loan to pay a tax bill. That is because the gearing of many of our family farming businesses is so highly strung that they could not pay any additional loan that may be granted to them, because the serviceability of that debt, which probably exists alongside the family farming business they already occupy, is so strongly geared.

That is before we take into account all the other budgetary consequences the Government have brought about: the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions, the increase in the minimum wage, the immediate effect of delinked payments, the removal of capital grants, the fertiliser tax that will no doubt be introduced and the double-cab pick-up tax. All impact the profitability and productivity of our many family farming businesses. This policy will also lead to a significant reduction in the land available to rent, given that around two thirds of working farms rent some or all of their land.

That is before we take into account the human cost. Farming can be a very lonely business, and I fear that the added weight of the changes to not only agricultural property relief but business property relief will be forcing some of the older generation, including those who are seriously ill at the moment, to make decisions right now. Indeed, I have spoken to a few. I spoke to one farmer just last week who is aged 78 and in ill health. If he passes away before April 2026, any death tax will be zero. If he passes away after April 2026, the death tax imposed on his family will be over £1 million. What decisions is that individual having to make right now? Those are the consequences of the decisions and choices this Government have made.

Will the Government have the moral courage to pause their actions and consult the industry experts I mentioned, as well as Opposition Members who continue to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents? As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has rightly asked every time she has been at the Dispatch Box, will the Government record farm suicides in the next few months so that we can properly assess the human impact of the choices this Labour Government are making? What measures could be put in place to mitigate the impact of these changes on those who are already over retirement age or in serious ill health? They have held on to these assets for many years and many generations, and they simply want to be in a position to hand them down to the next generation.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Why on earth has an economic impact assessment been undertaken of the consequences of the changes to agricultural property relief, and of agricultural property relief dual-claimed with business property relief, but not solely of business property relief? Has any impact assessment been taken into account in the changes to inheritance tax, as well as the wider budgetary changes as a result of the measures I have already alluded to?

Why do the Government believe that it is unnecessary to take into account the size of a family farm when indicating the negative consequences that this proposal will have? If they implement a £1 million threshold, the size of a farm absolutely matters, because that takes into account not only the amount of land being farmed, but the existing productivity and the assets retained within that business. Why is the size of the farms not being taken into account?

If the Government are so determined to push ahead, can they tell us why on earth have they arrived at the £1 million threshold as the appropriate figure? How do they deal with the progressive disappearance of the residence nil rate band on estates valued at more than £2 million? How will they protect tenanted land on estates that will be valued at levels much higher than any threshold? What hope is there for the tenant farmer who is told that their landlord is now having to liquidate the capital value tied up in the land that they rent to satisfy the Government’s potential tax liability? As a result, that tenant farmer will have no tenancy, because the tenancy will have to come to an end. For the tenant farmer, that will mean losing their home, their business and their livelihood. No amount of tax planning will help those tenant farmers to find a way forward.

In setting out the £1 million threshold, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that she wanted to protect hard-working family farmers. I can tell the Minister that all family farmers are hard-working, so why on earth was the threshold set at that level? On behalf of the tenant farming sector, I can say that whatever level is set, it will do nothing to protect our tenant farmers. They will be impacted by the collateral damage caused by the decisions their landlord will have to make.

Just this week, the noble Lord Mackinlay of Richborough received an answer to a written parliamentary question in the other place that stated that agricultural property relief and business property relief on assets tied up in private pension funds will not receive any of the reliefs that Ministers are citing. As the Pensions Minister, can the Minister confirm that and explain why the Government have further excluded farms held under those types of ownership from this calculation? Given the Government’s response in the other place, they will absolutely be impacted.

There is much more to do. As we have indicated, the Conservatives will reverse this disastrous family farm tax, which will impact hard-working family farms. The Opposition position is clear: this policy is bad for farming businesses, bad for rural economic growth, bad for food prices and bad for food security. Farmers can see it, the NFU can see it, the CLA can see it, the Tenant Farmers Association can see it and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers—of which I must declare I am a fellow, Mr Stringer—can see it. The supermarkets can see it, the Opposition can see it and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—the one lonely Labour MP sitting on the Government Benches—can see it, so why on earth can the Government not see it?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, we have a generous amount of time left. Can you try to ensure that you leave at least two minutes for a winding-up speech?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress.

In 2026-27, up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to pay more as a result of this change. That means that around three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief will not pay any more than they do now.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked questions about business property relief and specifically about claims that are not covered by agricultural property relief. Around three quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone—that is, the same proportion that have agricultural property relief, once we exclude those only holding alternative investment market or AIM shares, which are often held for the purpose of avoiding inheritance tax—will not pay any more inheritance tax in 2026-27. All estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a total cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. The system will remain more generous than it was before 1992, when inheritance tax was applied at a maximum rate of 50%, including on the first £1 million that was passed on.

Several Members have implied that the change will end the passing-down of farms between generations. I gently point out in response that farmers, agricultural landowners and small business owners did not receive 100% relief on inheritance tax for almost all of the 20th century, yet farms and businesses were very much passed down between generations. Indeed, the tax system will continue to support that process. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said, our reforms will:

“still leave…land much more lightly taxed than most other assets”.

These changes should also be seen in the wider context of support we are providing for farmers and rural communities. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) was wrong in his comments about the Office for Budget Responsibility, as the document produced this week provides no new information. However, he was right about the importance of food security, as was the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). That is why the Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including the biggest budget for sustainable food production in our history. It also committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last winter. The wider tax system will also continue to support farming—tenants as well as owners—including through exemptions from business rates, the use of rebated diesel and the ability, as I said, to average tax affairs over a number of years.

As we have heard today, the reforms to inheritance tax generate strong views. I understand that. I recognise that a small number of estates will have to pay more. I have not hidden from that today, nor in conversations—

[Robbie Moore]

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

[Victoria Atkins]

Supermarkets!

[Robbie Moore]

And supermarkets. The Minister and Government are, dare I say it, alone on this point.

Secondly, as he did not allow my intervention earlier, will the Minister confirm why the Government are not taking into account the value and the size of agricultural units when projecting the impact the changes will have on family farming businesses and farming businesses?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman raises the question of supermarkets. Supermarkets can talk but there is a lot they could do directly to support our farmers—

[Robbie Moore]

You are not listening to the question.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I listened to the question and I will make more progress. I have not hidden from what I have heard from individuals across the country about this issue in recent months, including from talking to farmers in mid-Wales and East Anglia. Reform of the reliefs is necessary if we are serious about putting our public finances on a stable footing and repairing our broken public services, including the schools, hospitals and roads that communities across the UK—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

No, I am going to finish. Communities across the UK, including in rural areas, rely on those things every single day. We have taken these decisions to make the system fairer and more sustainable and the decisions come alongside significant new investments in farming and support for small business.

Thank you, Mr Stringer, and all those who have spoken today, in particular the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin for securing the debate. I look forward to her concluding remarks.

Income Tax (Charge)

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I start by putting on the record my sheer admiration for a constituent of mine, Clive Smith, who was chair of the Haemophilia Society and has long fought for compensation following the infected blood scandal. This has been a long and painful journey for many, and I welcome the measures for victims in the Budget, building on the measures announced by the previous Administration.

Last night I spoke to a family-run business in my constituency that has been operating for over two decades. During the general election, the Labour party in Keighley and Ilkley knocked on my constituent’s door and promised that a Labour Government would back businesses like hers, and she believed it. Like many people across the country, she was reassured time and again that this so-called Government of service would not raise taxes on working people like her. As a result of last week’s Budget, my constituent now faces tax increases of over 130%. That complete hammer blow on a local family business in my constituency could force her to freeze wages, raise prices and even consider the business’s future, all to the detriment of those same working people that the Labour party in my constituency promised to represent.

That will be the reality not only for my constituent but for many other businesses right across the country. The Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the British Beer and Pub Association, Family Business UK, UKHospitality and Make UK—the list goes on—have all made it clear and warned businesses that the Budget will hit them hard. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility said that 76% of costs incurred by the rise in employers’ national insurance will be passed on to workers, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimated that the average family business would be £770 worse off, yet we have Cabinet members constantly saying that everything is okay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I will certainly look into the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that LHA and other housing matters are under constant review, and form part of the discussions that my Department has with the Treasury from time to time.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

T7. What steps is the Minister taking to help ensure that parents pay child maintenance and that the system is fair, particularly if there has been a difficult divorce or separation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that parents meet their obligations to their children and that the CMS has robust enforcement powers where parents refuse to pay child maintenance that they owe. The Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 received Royal Assent in July, and will substantially and rightly speed up that process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I am determined to ensure that, regardless of their background or postcode, young people can succeed in Rother Valley and beyond, and that is why the DWP has introduced the youth offer. It includes youth employability coaches and youth hubs such as the one at the local football club, Rotherham United, which helps to build confidence and provides a range of mental health support as well as supporting neurodiverse local customers.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

21. What steps his Department is taking to help fill vacancies and increase employment in Keighley and Ilkley.

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

The jobcentre team in Keighley work with local employers and partners to arrange sector-based work academies to support hospitality businesses along the Airedale corridor. They also run an excellent initiative with Bradford Care Association and Keighley College to fill vacancies in the care sector.

[Robbie Moore]

Inactivity is down by 300,000 since the covid peak, and UK inactivity is lower than the OECD and European Union averages. Does the Minister agree that the recent labour market statistics provide very encouraging news about the positive work the Government are doing to reduce economic inactivity across the country, notably in areas such as my constituency?

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend is right. Economic inactivity is down, employment is up and vacancies are down, thanks in part to the efforts of my hon. Friend and Keighley Jobcentre Plus, whose next jobs fair is on Wednesday week and will be attended by 17 employers across all sectors. I urge everyone in Keighley to attend as well.

Health and Disability White Paper

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am not satisfied with where we are in relation to Access to Work, and that is why I am driving a real effort within the Department, which is resulting in more staff being dedicated to it. We are refining our practice, streamlining processes and reflecting feedback, particularly on workplace assessments and travel claims. Those are two areas where some really constructive ideas have come forward and we are now looking to roll them out.

As I said in relation to PIP, digitalisation is key to this. It is about making sure that processes are easy to access and navigate. When we bring those factors together, they will help us to make a meaningful difference in shifting the dial on Access to Work applications.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

I welcome this health and disability White Paper, because we know that health issues may mean that people feel unable to carry on working or struggle to continue in the working environment. I thank my hon. Friend for the Government’s new £400 million fund to increase the availability of mental health and musculoskeletal resources. Does he agree that this support will help people across the country, including in Keighley and Ilkley, who need such support to stay in work for longer?

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituents, and he is always arguing for improved employment opportunities for residents in his area. The Budget commitments, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will no doubt touch on during today’s debate, amount to more than £500 million of employment support by 2025-26. That very much reflects the best practice that is being delivered out there in the country, building on it and cascading it further. I think it is fair to say that my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, and those of hon. Members across this House, will feel the benefit of this work in the years ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue in such constructive terms. I expect teams to be responsive to needs for reasonable adjustments. Perhaps she could share the details of the specific experience so that I can look into it. It is fair to say that staff go through ongoing learning, and we refresh the guidance at regular intervals.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

T3. Can my hon. Friend provide an assessment of how personal independence payment appointments are being administered? Many constituents have kindly contacted me to say that they are still having claims processed over the phone rather than at an in-person appointment. I am sure he agrees that in-person appointments are vital to ensuring that our constituents get the right level of support.

[Tom Pursglove]

Regardless of the form that PIP assessments take, the structure is the same. Evidence suggests that both forms are equally effective, but I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that if individuals want to have a face-to-face assessment, they absolutely can.