Air Pollution

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He has spoken about the issue many times in this place, so I know it is one that he cares deeply about.

Air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today: it contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and, as was outlined in the contributions of many hon. Members, places an enormous amount of pressure on our NHS. All of that reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. That is largely due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. When wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for, the economic cost of air quality not being addressed may be as high as £50 billion.

Air pollution also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities—13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods. The health impacts of that are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It can also cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous systems, as has also been mentioned by several Members. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lasting, lifelong effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Chamber what targeted action the Government will be taking to address that gap in exposure to poor air quality.

The Conservative party has a proud record when it comes to improving air quality, but there is much more to be done, as outlined in today’s contributions. Air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. The levels of all the key pollutants, bar ammonia, have fallen by over 70%, with levels of PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ falling by 27% and 20% respectively between 2014 and 2024. The previous Government’s 2019 clean air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030 respectively.

The previous Government also passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM_2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in population exposure by 31 December 2040. Furthermore, the previous Administration’s 2023 environmental improvement plan set out a direction to support clean air, with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances in smoke-controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality, continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North sea emission control area to cover the Irish sea, reducing emissions from shipping.

The roll-out of any strategy, legislation, guidance or regulation that focuses on improving air quality must also take into account the economic, social and environmental impact, so that the best strategy is adopted and there is the best buy-in from residents and businesses. Without their buy-in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate that we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation that then has a wider detrimental effect.

That is why, as the official Opposition, we oppose the Government’s restrictions on wood-burning stoves. For many people living in rural areas, wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where mains gas is unavailable and the alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place.

We also committed to scrapping the zero emission vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. There should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress. It should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or the weakening of domestic manufacturing. Again, a balance must be struck if we are to improve air quality.

That is why a strategy of simply taxing motorists is just not the right approach. The Mayor of London’s expansion of ULEZ is having hugely damaging financial consequences on some of the poorest and most deprived residents and communities in London, as well as on many motorists and trade-related businesses.

[Uma Kumaran]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.

[Uma Kumaran]

The Conservatives in City Hall called the whole of ULEZ “bewildering” and have objected to it at every turn. I read out the statistics earlier: there has been a 40% reduction in nitrogen oxide levels and a huge positive impact in London from ULEZ. The Mayor of London won two decisive elections after its introduction. London has also been recognised as a global leader by the United Nations. The Secretary-General himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about ULEZ and London’s climate action. Should the hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?

[Robbie Moore]

I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits.

A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest-working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact.

Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them.

My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy-in. That is why I use the example of the roll-out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non-charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy-in at the local level.

I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll-out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area?

It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co-ordinated approach across Government.

Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy-in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air.

To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy-in from all and not just use a one-size-fits-all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.

Farming: Financial Sustainability

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate.

I welcome the Minister to his place. His natural passion and enthusiasm for this vital sector is evident in the zero parliamentary mentions he made of farming prior to his appointment, despite his having been elected in 2017. Nevertheless, I wish him all the best. For the good of the sector, I hope that he gets out and engages with the farming community more than his predecessor, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle).

This debate is about financial sustainability for the farming sector. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have continually pulled the rug out from under our farmers. We have had the sudden and unannounced closure of the SFI scheme, the rapid acceleration of delinked payments, the introduction of the family farm and family business tax, the jobs tax and, soon, the fertiliser tax. The result? Record farm closures under this Labour Government, and greater food insecurity than we have seen before.

Our farmers are fed up, worried and increasingly concerned about the future of their farming businesses and their livelihoods. I know that because, unlike the Government, the shadow DEFRA team and I have been out and about, travelling up and down the country, attending agricultural shows and speaking to farmers across the United Kingdom. We have been to the Royal Highland Show, the Royal Cornwall Show, the Royal Cheshire Show, the Lincolnshire Show, the Essex Country Show, the Balmoral Show in Belfast, and Cereals—just to name a few. The locations may vary, but the same theme comes out again and again: devastating cash flow challenges as a result of the fiscal decisions made by this Labour Government.

Unlike in other professions, income from agriculture can be volatile. Farm businesses are price takers, and the determinants of the prices they receive are out of their control. By the time the crops or livestock reach the market, prices may have dropped, but goods must be sold anyway. Income schemes such as the SFI are so important—but not in the Government’s eyes, with their chop-and-change approach. Under this Government, the schemes are not providing any reassurance or support to the majority of farmers. Last year, the Government closed applications for the SFI scheme with no warning, and yet again they have announced a budget that does not meet farmers’ requirements.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that another uncertainty is coming down the path? The Climate Change Committee is asking farmers to reduce livestock numbers by up to 40%. That would devastate and make unviable so many farms—complete madness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. On the day when the farming roadmap has been announced, this just shows the direction that the Government want to take: to destock and produce food less. The key question from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the Secretary of State did not answer in the Chamber was: if that is the ambition of the Government, where is our food coming from?

The £100,000 cap for the SFI will be a disaster, resulting in lower environmental roll-outs. The changes to delinked payments that went through as a statutory instrument just a couple of weeks ago had no costed impact assessment associated with them. It is an absolute disgrace that Labour MPs all voted to drastically reduce the payments despite no impact assessment having been done.

The Conservative party has been clear that we will reverse the family farm and family business taxes. We will reinstall the 100% relief on agricultural and business property because we know the huge negative implications that is having on family businesses needing to mitigate any inheritance tax liability and on the investment they are able to put into their businesses. That is impacting not only our primary producers but the wider supply chain. I say to those Labour MPs that they should be ashamed of themselves for continuously voting that through.

Then we come to the challenges associated with input costs, including the fertiliser tax. If we want to increase or stabilise domestic self-sufficiency at 63%, why on earth are the Government coming through with the fertiliser tax? It has been raised as a concern, but the Government seem unwilling to tackle the challenge. The Conservatives will scrap that tax. [Interruption.]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. There has been a lot of chuntering while the shadow Minister has been on his feet. If you wish to try to intervene on the shadow Minister, please do—he may give way. However, do not chunter constantly when people are trying to make a speech.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank you, Mr Turner, for your advice to colleagues. If they wish to intervene, they are more than welcome to do so.

Red diesel has been a huge challenge: its price rose dramatically from 67p a litre to about £1.35p a litre at its peak. However, the Government’s rebate or reduction applies only to this year. If someone is growing crops or producing livestock, they need greater certainty beyond this calendar year. I call on the Minister to reinstate a level of reassurance that goes beyond the end of this calendar year.

We then have the EU reset. Pushed by EU members, the Government have put back the date beyond 22 July. However, CropLife UK has rightly estimated that the EU reset deal, as it is being promoted at the moment, could drain £810 million from UK farmers and sacrifice almost 9,000 jobs. What reassurance can the Minister provide to our arable sectors, which are suffering and struggling right now?

Today we had the announcement about the farming roadmap for the next 25 years. Where is the reassurance that cross-sector Government Departments have bought into that? Labour’s record on this is not good. It does not matter what food strategy the Secretary of State for DEFRA comes out with: if a Chancellor comes out with fiscal decisions like those under the last two years of this Labour Government, that will blow any food strategy out of the water.

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I suspect that the shadow Minister is going to bring his remarks to an end very soon.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely, Mr Turner.

The financial sustainability and profitability of the farming sector is vital. Through the choices that the Government have made and voted on, they have demonstrated that when the revolving door of farming Ministers say that food security is national security, that is just warm words.

Water Safety

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing this really important debate. He has been a staunch advocate of this issue since his election to Parliament, and I commend him on his efforts. He works closely with the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on this issue. I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of Vanessa Abbess, the constituent of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen; she has been a tireless campaigner on water safety since the death of her son, Joe, in a riptide current in 2023.

I also want to acknowledge the work of several third-party organisations that have done so much good and important work on this issue, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK and Swim England, whose commitment to water safety and education has been tremendous and whose good work has saved lives. I also pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for the work it does in saving lives at sea.

This is an emotive topic. I thank all Members who have spoken for their commitment on this issue and for the work they have done on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen rightly advocated for better cross-Government support and a dedicated Minister. Having previously been the water Minister, I know how much of a struggle it is to pull together all Ministers with responsibility for water, so I commend and agree with the point he raised about trying to achieve better interministerial involvement. I also commend his work on raising awareness around a national campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) rightly raised the important work of stakeholders such as national parks in this area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about swimming in dangerous locations such as quarries, as well as the need for increased awareness.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) gave an impassioned speech about Chiedza, a young girl from her constituency who unfortunately passed away after getting into difficulty. I commend the work the hon. Lady is doing on behalf of her constituents, advocating for swimming lessons and increased awareness. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme also gave an impassioned speech about Sam, who unfortunately passed away in the River Don. He rightly raised the concerns of Sam’s family about increasing awareness and the role of legislators in putting pressure on stakeholders, such as water companies, and on the education system. I hope the Government will consider the key points in Sam’s law, as there are critical recommendations they could take forward.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) rightly mentioned challenges in winter months, as well as hot periods, and the importance of water safety. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again raised the importance of having water safety encompassed in the curriculum and spoke about the challenges facing West Coast Paddlers in gaining access to the leisure centre. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned the importance of creating safe spaces to swim outdoors; I wish her the best of luck with her lido application in York.

I have my own challenges in Keighley. There was a tragedy in the summer of 2021 when a 27-year-old man passed away after getting into difficulties at Ponden reservoir. I put on record my thanks to the Keighley Sea Cadets, who work tirelessly on behalf of constituents to raise awareness around water safety. I was lucky enough to join them recently at Ponden Mill near Stanbury to see their great work.

We have seen the terrible statistics that more than 19 people died in the water in one week during the most recent hot period. I reassure all hon. Members that we are committed to working cross-party with the Government to reduce the incidence of deaths in water, and increase the provision of swimming lessons and water safety education. We also need education for those involved in emergency situations. The figures are stark: between 2020 and 2025, more than 1,600 people died by accidental drowning, with three times as many drownings occurring during extreme heat as opposed to a typical summer’s day, and 47% occurring between May and August.

As several hon. Members rightly mentioned, education is key to preventing deaths in water, and that must start as early as possible. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education announced extra support for schools in a bid to ensure that every child could swim and be safe in and around water by the end of primary school, as part of the sporting future strategy. That was backed by £320 million through the PE and sport premium, with measures including extra lessons for children who did not meet expectations after core lessons.

Under this Government, work continues to improve water safety, such as the integration of the water safety code into new education guidance. I also welcome the additional funding put in place for this academic year for the PE and sport premium, which is used by primary schools to support swimming and water safety lessons.

There is, however, much more to be done, as all Members have noted. There remains a major issue regarding access to opportunities. A Sport England report estimates that just 74% of children now leave school able to swim 25 metres, which is down from the figure before the pandemic. That is not just a gap in ability but starkly corresponds to the demographic areas those children come from. Only 37% of children from low-income families are able to swim 25 metres compared with 76% of children from more affluent backgrounds—a point noted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The result is that children from the most deprived areas are twice as likely to drown. I would be keen to understand from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address that inequality, not only in the curriculum but in access to swimming facilities.

Another issue is the lack of suitable facilities in which water safety and water confidence can be taught. Swim England has found that 76% of publicly accessible water space has been lost over the last two decades. This is a twofold issue: on the one hand, water safety cannot be taught without pools, and on the other hand, the lack of publicly accessible water space could drive people to swim in unsafe spaces, as Members have noted. What are the Government doing to ensure that more facilities such as swimming pools are made available to our constituents, and that they remain open?

In addition to increasing access to swimming pools and delivering swimming lessons, there is a great deal of work to do to ensure that the general public are aware of all aspects of water safety. It is about not just teaching people to swim but ensuring that they are aware of the risks presented by entering water. Cold water shock, not an inability to swim, is identified as the primary mechanism of accidental drowning in UK open water, triggered by sudden immersion in water below 15°. The RNLI and the National Water Safety Forum’s “Float to Live” campaign teaches a specific counter-response: if you fall into cold water unexpectedly, do not fight it; lean back, spread your arms and legs, and float. Investing in and supporting awareness campaigns such as “Float to Live” is vital if we are to significantly reduce the number of deaths in UK waters. I would therefore like to understand what the Government are doing to help those organisations.

I would also like to understand what more the Water Minister feels could be done to the likes of bathing water regulations. It is constantly being advocated that the title of “bathing water” alone creates the presumption that the designated area is safe to swim in, but many of those designations are in river systems and on the coast where it is not necessarily safe to swim. The designations are more about water quality than the safety of the water.

It is clear that, despite the best intentions of current and previous Governments, we are not doing enough when it comes to water safety and the prevention of drowning. Many have rightly declared drowning a silent epidemic, and we must work cross-party to ensure that there is greater preparedness among the general public when it comes to water safety. I reassure all Members that the Opposition will work with the Government on this issue on behalf of all our constituents.

Draft REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

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

The draft regulations will extend the current legislative deadlines for registration to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under UK REACH. They will also extend the period during which downstream users and distributors who were importing from the EU before the end of the EU exit implementation period can continue to import chemicals from the EU without submitting a full registration. The official Opposition support this measure, because ultimately it seeks to serve businesses and save them money by extending deadlines.

The deadlines have already been extended twice, both times by the previous Administration: first in 2020, then in 2023. The Opposition agree that extending the deadlines further via the draft regulations will provide sufficient time for the Government to develop and introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of EU exit. This approach aims to reduce industry costs significantly.

We welcome the findings of the impact assessment, which concludes:

“This policy is not expected to negatively affect businesses of any size.”

It also notes that the cost savings from discounted terms could benefit small and micro businesses “less proportionately” than larger businesses, and that this is

“due to shorter extensions linked to later deadlines for smaller tonnages.”

Of the 3,195 registered businesses in the chemical sector, 3,125—some 98%—are small, medium-sized and micro businesses, as the impact assessment outlines.

Although we support the draft regulations, I acknowledge that there has been some third-party concern about the impact of the proposed changes and the risk of divergence from the EU in this policy area, as noted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which stated its concerns in a formal submission to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I hope that the Minister can assure those organisations that have concerns that divergence from EU regulations will occur only when there is a convincing and compelling case for it, and not simply for its own sake. We will support this delegated legislation.

Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is perhaps not surprising that we are here talking about yet another piece of legislation that will impose further harm and unnecessary burdens on our farmers. We have already had the family farm tax, which has now regrettably come into force, the added financial costs of the increase in employer national insurance contributions, and, of course, uncertainty and mixed messages on things such as fuel duty and the rising costs of fertiliser.

After leaving the EU, the previous Conservative Government committed to transitioning farmers in England away from direct payments to domestic environmental land management schemes, or ELMS, as they became known, which pay for the direct delivery of public goods. To fund the new schemes, direct payments, now called delinked payments, were scheduled to be reduced gradually from 2021 to the end of 2028. This Labour Government, however, are accelerating that transition. The draft regulations propose a staggering 98% reduction on the first £30,000 tranche that a farmer would previously have received under direct payments, in effect limiting payments to a maximum of £600 per year in 2026 and 2027.

When the previous Conservative Administration brought forward delinked payments, we intended a gradual phase-out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods. However, this Government accelerated that decline dramatically last year and have continued at a similar rate this year, which in effect has ended the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect. That was not announced before the last general election, so farmers were under a false illusion when the Labour Government came to power, which undermined their budgets at a time of already unprecedented worry and uncertainty.

This is not a party political point that I make here, but one that reflects the concerns of the whole sector. When the percentage reductions for 2025 and 2027 were announced in June last year, the vice-president of the National Farmers Union said:

“Having had significant reductions to delinked payments announced only last autumn in the Budget, to have further big reductions starting next year will be yet another financial blow to many farmers who haven’t had the time to effectively plan for them.”

The then president of the Country Land and Business Association said that

“the sharp fall in BPS payments was expected but is nonetheless unwelcome. It will hit especially hard those whose profit margins are now cut to the bone…While there might be a consolation that the new SFI 2026 scheme could be ready for applications in spring 2026, there is as yet no clarity on what that will look like and who will have access to it”.

This Labour Government promised that farmers would be able to access new income streams as direct payments were phased out, but that has not happened. The SFI closed to applications in March 2025 and it remains closed. While I accept that the Government have committed to opening SFI 2026 this month, it is not open yet, and it will only be open for smallholdings of up to 50 hectares. Currently, farmers lack access to replacement support during this period of high cost inflation and market volatility, much of which has been brought on by policy decisions made by this Government.

Many SFI 2023 agreements and countryside stewardship mid-tier agreements are due to expire at the end of this year and in early 2027. With no clarity on when farmers can expect to see an SFI 2027, or a further replacement from SFI 2026 opening to all from September, they face being locked out of funding schemes until early 2028 through no fault of their own, by which point, under these draft regulations, the delinked payments will in effect have ceased. Additionally, due to the first-come, first-served nature of the new SFI approach for 2026 and the long period of inaccessibility, demand for SFI 2026 in September is expected to be high. The NFU and the CLA have also expressed concerns about the capacity issues that the Rural Payments Agency is expected to experience. Farmers approaching the end of their environmental agreements face being unable to apply unrestricted for a new agreement until the window has already closed, due to the budget being allocated.

Given the well-documented cash-flow crisis in the farming sector, what assessment has been made of the volatility impact on farming businesses that have had their basic payments reduced by at least 98% and are unable to apply for SFI, capital grants or countryside stewardship higher-tier schemes? I also note that no impact assessment is associated with these draft regulations. Why has no full impact assessment been undertaken by the Government, despite the policy change that we are debating having huge financial implications for many—in fact, probably all—farming businesses in England?

We support the long-term fair transition of delinked payments, but we cannot do so at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the middle east has caused uncertainty about fuel and fertiliser prices and grain prices remain low, undermining arable farmers’ profitability, but it is not just external factors that add pressure on farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Labour Government have left many farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI window applications last year, the family farm and family business taxes, increased employer national insurance contributions and the Government’s refusal to consider the Conservatives’ cheap power plan to lower energy costs have had a cumulative impact. Ultimately, these draft regulations do not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability, let alone their profitability. That is why the Conservatives will vote against the passage of the regulations. I urge the Government to rethink their plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I thank all those who have contributed to this short but perfectly formed debate.

The draft regulations were announced last June as part of a process that commenced under the previous Government following Brexit, when they announced a seven-year programme to transition away from the common agricultural policy, which makes delinked payments, to a much more focused environmental policy. The previous Government created that policy and the then Labour Opposition supported it, because we both accepted that farming has to be done on a more sustainable basis. We must see nature recovery, we must invest in healthy soils and in recreating healthy pollinator populations, and we must ensure reasonable food production rather than degrading our natural assets and resources to maximise food production at any cost. We are shifting to a much more sustainable model, and although the Opposition indicated that they will vote against the draft regulations, I hope that everybody can support that shift in principle.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that we are going too fast, but the farming transition was a seven-year transition. All the ELM schemes and support for farmers will be involved in protecting nature and increasing sustainability, rather than going towards delinked payments. He seems to object not to the end point, but to the speed of the transition over the next two years. I understand what he is saying, but I think that he is dancing on the head of a pin.

[Robbie Moore]

If the Minister were speaking to a farmer, would she say that this is dancing on the head of a pin? We are talking about reducing an annual delinked payment to a farming business from a potential £30,000 to about £600. Given all the additional overheads placed on farming businesses that produce food, the Opposition believe that that is too quick a drop, and it comes without sufficient notification.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Sufficient notification has been given, since the transition began seven years ago—everybody has been expecting it. It is important that we get the transition done. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money being taken away from delinked payments is going straight back into the system and will be available for the transition.

The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way of supporting our farmers, protecting food security or restoring nature. Former Secretary of State Lord Gove certainly agreed with that when he began the transition after Brexit. We continue to invest in our environmental land management schemes and our range of grants and other support for farmers to deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity. Without the reductions contained in the draft regulations, spend on delinked payments in each of the years 2026-27 and 2027-28 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a shortfall in the remaining farming budget for each of those years that then could not be spent on financing the transition. Those who believe in the principle of the transition need also to believe in the means.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk spoke extremely well about his farmers, and I welcome his support. I understand that the transition can be difficult and worrisome, but it is crucial for the future of our farming profitability and resilience that we manage to get this done. The Government are determined to assist farmers all we possibly can in achieving the transition. The vast majority of them know that it has to happen, and we will see what we can do to ensure that it does.

The money released by reducing delinked payments is not being lost to the sector; it is being reinvested through our other schemes for farmers and managers. We are being transparent about how the money is used. Each year, we publish a farming and countryside partnership annual report, which shows how the farming budget has been spent. The report for the financial year 2024-25 was published last September. We will publish our next report later this year. That will be transparent about where the money has gone and how it has been spent. We have provided a breakdown of how we plan to spend an average of £2.3 billion a year through the farming and countryside programme, showing planned spend for each of the years between 2026-27 and 2028-29. That was set out in a farming blog, which is available on the Government website.

It is clear that we cannot achieve our environmental goals or have food security unless farm businesses are profitable. By increasing investment in our environmental land management schemes, we are helping farmers to protect the environment and the business foundations of farming—our soils, our water and our pollinators—which will help to reduce their input costs and boost productivity.

We know that there is high demand from farmers for our ELM schemes, so I am pleased that SFI26 will be opening to small farms later this month. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that it was for small farms only, but the first window is also open to those without an existing agreement, so it is a slightly wider opening than he hinted at in his speech.

As was announced at the NFU conference, in 2026-27 we will invest £120 million in new productivity grants, which can help businesses to cut costs, improve efficiency and protect profits. Farmers can also boost their businesses through the animal health and welfare pathway, a programme designed to strengthen biosecurity, manage disease risks and improve animal health and welfare outcomes, which, in turn, boost farm productivity and profitability. We are also continuing our work to ensure fair competition across the supply chain, and have announced planning reform to unlock food and farming infrastructure development. The Government’s new farming and food partnership board has set out how it will work to drive growth in all sectors, improving productivity and profitability. It is beginning its work with two sectors—horticulture and poultry—but it will get on to work in others.

Our vision is to help farmers to improve their productivity and profitability, and to collaborate with them on delivering positive environmental change. Continuing to phase out delinked payments will enable us to invest in the long-term future of farming, by ensuring that funding is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address.

First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published?

My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

As I understand it, the purpose of the regulations is to take a pragmatic approach so that developers can develop inshore and offshore wind more quickly by providing a wider range of compensation. If the Government have a change of heart about the development of Rosebank and Jackdaw, does my hon. Friend expect them to take a similar approach to offshore oil and gas?

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case.

I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place.

My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs.

The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister share my astonishment that the Scottish Government refuse to talk about so-called spatial squeeze? It is a major issue for the fishing fleet, because it simply cannot trawl in between the wind turbines. The Government appear to deny the existence of the problem, but it is a massive difficulty for the fishing fleet, is it not?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—

[The Chair]

Order. The Scottish Government have nothing to do with this Parliament. We have to remain in scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I will absolutely listen to your comments, Mrs Harris. I merely wish to make the point that spatial squeeze is an issue, whether it be north of the border in Scottish waters or south of the border in English waters, where there is a similar challenge to do with offshore wind farm development. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish Government addressing the issue, I would like to understand from the Minister what they are doing to address the concerns about spatial squeeze that our fishermen have raised, and how they will address their concerns in the future.

Briefly, I would like to make a point about the establishment of marine recovery funds. I know it is hoped that marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet they are not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It is also important to note that marine recovery funds are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of marine recovery schemes to be, and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?

To conclude, the central concerns that I present on behalf of the Opposition about the statutory instrument are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, the Opposition support the development of affordable home-grown energy sources, which is why we are fighting so hard to oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North sea.

With all subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer while being responsible and honest caretakers of our ecosystems. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns I have laid out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am grateful to hon. Members across the Committee for the considered points they have raised. Without these reforms, vital offshore wind projects will continue to encounter obstacles in securing appropriate environmental compensation measures, delaying progress towards clean renewable energy. This SI puts forward a balanced and pragmatic new approach to the environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind, one that supports faster deployment of renewable energy and, crucially, unlocks new opportunities to improve the health of our marine environment.

I reassure the Committee that environmental protection sits at the heart of this policy, and our commitment to maintaining strong environmental protection remains firm. This SI makes targeted amendments to specific parts of habitats regulation in relation to compensatory measures for offshore wind. Robust environmental safeguards have been put in place to ensure that those changes will not weaken our existing protection, and to ensure continued compliance with all domestic and international environmental commitments.

In response to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, this approach is fully consistent with the Government’s wider environmental ambitions, including our commitment to 30 by 30. The UK has already designated about 38% of our seas as marine protected areas, demonstrating our determination to protect the marine environment at scale. Under the Environment Act 2021, there is a statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features in English waters to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition. We know that some of these sites continue to face significant pressure.

Let me turn to the points on the guidance made by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. In response to the concern that important policy details have not been included in this statutory instrument, I reassure the Committee that we have been fully transparent in the published policy note on what the statutory instrument policy intention is and on what the accompanying guidance will cover. The guidance will explain the key elements of the statutory instrument and how it should be implemented and understood. It will also provide clarity on broader elements of existing habitat regulation requirements.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns regarding the Department’s decision to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament ahead of publishing the draft guidance. However, the statutory instrument is essential in delivering the clean power mission and ensuring that progress is not delayed. Although the guidance is an important supporting document, it is a technical and operational, designed to explain to practitioners how to put the policies into action.

We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders on its content. Alongside that, we have worked closely with the Scottish Government to ensure alignment as far as possible with their respective guidance. I reassure hon. Members that that engagement has strengthened the guidance, ensuring that it will be robust and fit for purpose when published on 21 May.

[Robbie Moore]

Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.

[Emma Hardy]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point on fishermen now—let me rearrange my papers. Regarding the impact of the statutory instrument on fishers, we are actively considering how best to engage marine users, including fishers, in the development of wider compensatory measures, particularly where those measures may affect their activity. Any future compensatory measures enabled by these reforms that could impact the commercial fishing industry will be fully assessed and DEFRA will work closely with the fishing industry to discuss practicalities, ensuring that any proposals are developed and implemented in a fair and workable way.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about spatial squeeze, which is a real issue for the fishing community and one that we certainly recognise in DEFRA. We have looked at the cumulative restrictions on the fisheries from offshore wind, as well as nature protection and how that impacts the spatial squeeze, and the Crown Estate is working with the sector to get its input into the processes to refine sites for future offshore wind leasing.

In many areas, different activities can co-exist and are able to work together. Marine Management Organisation data shows that there is some level of fishing in around 80% of the English sea. Depending on the fishing gear used, fishing can overlap with other activities. For example, fishing can still take place over telecom cables or in some other areas.

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?

[Emma Hardy]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of all the people that we have engaged with. I have been reassured by the Department that the engagement has been substantive and extensive across all the different organisations. Of course, if what I have just said is found to be not correct, I will make sure that I correct it for him, but that is certainly my understanding.

How it will work with the marine recovery fund was also mentioned. That fund is exciting, and the statutory instrument works with it to support the acceleration of offshore wind development. By looking at the different types of compensatory measures available for offshore wind impacts, the statutory instrument will increase the number and range of compensatory measures that can be added to the library.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley raised an important point about moving through the hierarchy. To be fair, a number of non-governmental organisations have said that they do not want developers to go straight down, and asked how we ensure that the hierarchy is in place and a developer does not go straight down to tier 3. I welcome the opportunity to expand on that now.

What we are going to be doing—[Interruption.] I have had inspiration—it just arrived; it happens like that sometimes. The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument. I thank my officials for that inspiration.

There are two circumstances where it is permissible to move through the hierarchy, as outlined in the proposed compensatory hierarchy, published in the policy note. The first applies to the availability of measures for a developer to move to tier 2, or in some cases tier 3, if they can demonstrate that no, or insufficient, suitable tier 1 measures are available, or they can progress to tier 3 if no suitable tier 2 measures are available.

The second circumstance allows a developer to progress through the hierarchy if they can demonstrate that doing so will enable a greater ecological benefit. Progression to tier 3 will be allowed only if a developer can demonstrate that no tier 1 or tier 2 measures are available, or where tier 3 measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. Developers must submit clear evidence to the consenting authority who will assess proposals on a case-by-case basis, informed by advice from statutory nature conservation bodies before allowing progression to tier 3.

Where tier 3 is permitted, developers must draw from the library of strategic compensatory measures. Measures can be added to the library only once they have been approved by the relevant Minister. We have tried to put in various safeguards throughout to ensure that tier 3 measures cannot become the default or easy options.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley for the important issues he often raises—I am sure he will continue to do so. He is a passionate supporter of his constituents. I thank him for his support for the statutory instrument. I hope I answered all the questions from all hon. Members. I thank the Committee, and commend to it the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

So here we are: after stopping and starting, and chopping and changing, the Government are finally working on the roll-out of the new SFI scheme, which will be launched this summer, but it comes with lower payment rates for key environmental delivery measures, and a £100,000 cap. We learn that thousands of upland farmers will be excluded altogether, and that those on historic agreements will still be locked in and unable to apply. Farmers are already struggling as a result of rising costs, the family farm tax and choices that this Labour Government are making. How will the Secretary of State focus on ensuring the effective delivery of the scheme? What does she say to the many farmers I have spoken to, who say that the new SFI creates more cost, more risk and less reward for our farmers?

[Emma Reynolds]

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We are simplifying the SFI precisely because we want more farmers to benefit from it. At the moment, 25% of SFI funding goes to just 4% of farms, and we do not think that is right. We are simplifying the scheme, so that it is easier and less costly to administer. We have new leadership at the Rural Payments Agency, as he will know, and the cap he talked about affects only a tiny minority of those who already have an agreement. [Interruption.] He can keep shouting at me from a sedentary position, but I cannot talk and listen, believe it or not. There is a record number of farmers in our schemes, unlike under the previous Government, who failed to get the money out the door.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I thank the Solicitor General for our meeting in January to discuss improving the ULS scheme? As I have said before, it cannot be right that grieving families have just 28 days to appeal the sentences of their abusers, while the abusers themselves can extend the deadline. There are common-sense approaches that we can take right now, including extending the 28-day deadline, creating a statutory duty for victims and expanding its scope. Those approaches are backed by the Victims’ Commissioner. Does the Solicitor General agree with her?

[The Solicitor General]

I welcomed the opportunity to meet with the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss these issues in more detail. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tracey Hanson, who has been a tireless campaigner for victims of serious crime, particularly in relation to unduly lenient sentences, following the tragic loss of her son Josh? Organisations such as the Josh Hanson Trust do vital work in this area. As I said in answer to the previous question, I am working with Ministry of Justice colleagues to see if we can find solutions to some of the issues raised today.

Fur: Import and Sale

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue in her role as a shadow Minister before the general election, in tabling a private Member’s Bill and securing many Westminster Hall debates on animal welfare issues. I congratulate her on securing this important debate.

As all Members indicated in their contributions, fur farming has rightly been banned in England and Wales since 2000. Legislation prohibits the keeping and breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter due to the value of their fur, but that was 26 years ago. The hon. Lady raised the issue of fairness in how, while we have a ban in place here, we still enable imports that do not meet our standards. We have not yet achieved a ban on imports. Personally, I feel that is wholly unfair and inadequate, and it needs to be explored.

What position do we see ourselves in today? There are several restrictions in place that seek to monitor and control how this trade can be carried out in the UK. There are restrictions on some skin and fur products that may never be legally imported into the UK, including fur from cats and dogs, but we all acknowledge that it still does not go far enough. There are also established controls on fur from endangered species protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species, and on imports of fur from wild animals caught using methods that are non-compliant with international humane trapping standards, but again that does not go far enough.

Under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012—EU regulations that have now been assimilated into UK law—any textile product that contains real fur or other animal-derived materials must carry the mandatory label:

“Contains non-textile parts of animal origin”.

That wording must appear exactly as specified and must be clearly visible to consumers. The regulations require all textile products to display a label identifying their fibre content, including any fur, leather or bone. I would argue that is not adequate or clear enough to a consumer who is buying a product, and therefore it does not go far enough.

Many Members have rightly said that while we have banned fur farming and created a direction for other countries to follow, continuing to enable imports is still offshoring our responsibility. I therefore urge the Government to explore that route.

We know that fur imports are decreasing. Under the previous Administration, as we all know, animal welfare standards increased and the volume of fur imported fell by 50% in five years. The trend is declining and there is a decrease in consumers buying imported fur, so the economics back the position of taking a much stronger approach to banning imported fur.

A consultation was launched seeking views on the fur market. The call for evidence received over 30,000 responses from businesses, representative bodies and individuals, demonstrating strong public support and interest. It is good to see that the Government have now published the responses to that consultation, but I would like to understand from the Minister how the Government will go forward.

In addition to the interests of businesses, it is clear that this is an issue that matters to the British public. A petition to ban fur imports was launched by the Fur Free Britain campaign, receiving over 1.5 million signatures. The issue has also been debated many times in this place. We all acknowledge that this demonstrates a strong feeling from the British people that the import of fur should be banned. I would like to clearly understand the Government’s position following the Animal Welfare Committee’s report, which was published following that petition.

The Government announced their animal welfare strategy in December. Much of it was welcome, but I want to ask the Minister why it did not include a ban on fur imports, as it had previously been indicated that an incoming Labour Government would be willing to explore that. I also want to seek clarity from the Government on the potential timeframe for any additional consultation that is likely to be announced on this issue. What will they be doing, in addition to what is announced in the animal welfare strategy, to explore the issue further?

As has been said, much good work has been done by previous Administrations, and there is an indication of more of this in the animal welfare strategy, to improve animal welfare generally in this country. That was picked up by one of the contributions about ear cropping. We cannot be in a scenario where we are banning things from happening here but effectively enabling an equivalent product—whether it is food, a live animal or a product from a live animal—that is banned or that does not meet our expected level of animal welfare to come into the country. That is simply unfair, and I want to push the Minister on what the Government’s position is on the timing of that going forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Farming cashflows are under pressure, and farming businesses need clarity, certainty and clear policy direction from this Government now more than ever. However, with partial U-turns, continuous consultations, new taskforces, road maps, frameworks, reviews and now—finally—an announcement that the renewed sustainable farming incentive will be launched, but not until summer, farming businesses are really struggling to financially plan ahead. In all this confused policy direction, has the Minister decided the budget allocation for the new SFI scheme? How much will be available per farm? What will the assessment criteria be? Given that she wants to open up the scheme first to smallholdings, has she yet defined the definition of a small farm?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have been quite clear that the new SFI should be simpler. We do not want it to be distributed in the way that it has been in the past; under the Conservatives, 25% of that scheme went to 4% of farms. That is why we have decided to open up the scheme first and foremost to small farms. We are in negotiations about the definition. All this will be set out in great detail, and there is transparency and simplicity ahead. We will not fall into the traps of creating schemes so complex that they cannot be properly administered by the Rural Payments Agency—that was the legacy that we received from the Conservatives.

Animal Welfare Strategy for England

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is good to be able to discuss the animal welfare strategy after the Government announced it on 22 December—after Parliament had risen and just before Christmas—in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this debate, which I believe is her first in Westminster Hall—what a great topic to bring to the House, because it finally gives all Members of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the strategy.

We are a nation of animal lovers, as has been made clear by the contributions to the debate. Members have mentioned the pets at home that they care for deeply—including Roy the dog, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I hope that it was not just Roy the dog that managed to get the hon. Member elected, and that it was his good work as well, even though Roy appeared on his leaflets.

It is right to point out that since leaving the European Union we have had greater freedom to determine our animal welfare law. We passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised the sentience of vertebrates. Powers conferred by the Act have also seen octopuses and lobsters recognised as sentient beings. The Act also created the Animal Sentience Committee, which provides expert advice to the Government on future animal welfare reforms.

The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 delivered on the previous Government’s commitment to ban the export of live animals, a practice that extended the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by export. In 2016 and 2023, the previous Government made changes to the law to require dogs and cats retrospectively to be microchipped in England, ensuring that they can be reunited with their owners; I visited Oakworth Boarding Cattery and Yorkshire Cat Rescue, in my constituency, which very much welcomed the measure. In 2019, wild animals were banned from circuses, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum possible sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.

However, there is much work to be done. We welcome a good proportion of what is in the animal welfare strategy, including banning puppy farming, but I will spend most of my contribution talking about the recommendations that impact our farming sector. The Government must work with our farmers, listen to the concerns of the industry and ensure that any reforms are affordable, are practical, are effective and, at their heart, promote animal welfare. I therefore concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and the hon. Member for Hexham that any food we import into this country must meet our animal welfare standards.

When we are putting additional pressures on our farming community through employer national insurance, the minimum wage and the family farm tax—which are hindering the investment our farming businesses and wider supply chain need to make to deal with the additional challenges associated with animal welfare regulation—there is a fear that British domestic food production will be unable to compete with imported food. We have seen an increase in the amount of food not produced at our standards coming into this country.

The British Poultry Council has recognised this issue. It states:

“Welfare will continue to be a top priority for our members…However, welfare does not exist in isolation from all the other pressures we face, and our guiding light right now has to be feeding the nation through supporting our food producers not hindering them.”

That is why it was so frustrating to learn this week—despite the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about eggs being imported into this country—that the Government have extended for a further two years the relationship whereby Ukrainian eggs can be imported into this country, despite those eggs not being produced at the high standards that we require in this country and industry concerns around salmonella. I hope that the hon. Lady shares my concerns about the Government’s extending that relationship, despite the concerns raised by the wider egg industry.

One point that has not been mentioned in today’s debate is the Government’s desire to change the welfare practices associated with lamb castration and tail docking, about which many sheep farmers have raised huge concerns. The castration of male lambs is an important management practice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and tail docking is essential to prevent and reduce the risk of fly strike. Those are significant animal welfare issues.

The Government have launched a consultation, but they need to listen to our farming communities and learn from their insight. The current proposals will be detrimental to animal welfare, reduce our ability to compete and have a negative impact on the sector. Simply dictating that an anaesthetic must be used is wholly impractical and, I dare say, adds to the level of uncertainty about animal welfare. When dealing with very small lambs, it is very difficult to get the dosage of anaesthetic right. That is just one illustration of the Government’s naivety in relation to how food is produced in this country.

The Government also wish to introduce further animal welfare controls for broiler breeding—the meat chicken sector—to promote slower-growing breeds. I again urge them to continue to engage with the sector through the consultation that they will no doubt undertake and to adopt an evidence-based approach that considers domestic food security and consumer demand. Chicken is of course a very important meat product, and the Government’s direction of travel is causing concern in the broiler industry.

I also want to talk about ending beak tipping in the poultry sector. As birds age, there is huge risk associated with pecking. That issue has high animal welfare status, and hatcheries use skilled operators and precision equipment in beak tipping. The Government aspire to ban the practice, but that is not necessarily in the best interests of the industry, so I urge them to engage with the poultry sector through the consultation. There was a real opportunity in the animal welfare strategy to be really tough on food labelling, and it is therefore frustrating that there is no real ambition in that regard. Compassion in World Farming and Members in this Chamber have expressed their disappointment that the strategy does not include proposals on food labelling.

Our in-house vet, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), said that there was a missed opportunity to tackle the issue of dogs with facial conformation challenges. He made the point that between 2010 and 2020, there was a 3,000% increase in flat-faced dogs. I will not repeat the terminology, because I am not familiar with it, but there was a missed opportunity to tackle that conformation in dogs.

It is also disappointing that there was no ambition to reform the veterinary sector. The strategy fails to include much-needed urgent reforms and actions for the veterinary sector, which faces a workforce shortage. The sector not only maintains standards but should be driving the enhancement of animal welfare and animal standards. The Opposition are clear that the Government need to make that a priority, so I ask the Minister what their intentions are.

Another area of concern, which we debated in this Chamber earlier this week, is fireworks. That issue was raised not only by the RSPCA but by more than 376,000 people who signed petitions on the subject. There was a huge missed opportunity in the animal welfare strategy, which does not address the hugely negative impact of fireworks on pets, other animals and livestock.

[Perran Moon]

I have listened intently to hon. Gentleman, but I am struggling to understand the Opposition’s position on trail hunting. Will they join Reform in supporting it or Labour in banning it?

[Robbie Moore]

I am very clear: fox hunting was banned in 2002, and any fox hunting that is seen to be taking place is illegal. The fact that trail hunting has been included in the animal welfare strategy is an indication of the Government’s naivety about what is happening. This is not an animal welfare issue; the Government are removing liberty, freedom and the ability for private individuals to conduct an activity on their land. The Opposition’s position is that there are much, much more important things that the Government should be focusing on.