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.

Food Inflation

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this important debate, throughout which we have heard valuable contributions from Members rightly raising concerns on behalf of their constituents. We all know that food inflation significantly impacts the cost of living by eroding household purchasing power, and that it disproportionately affects those in low-income households, leading to food insecurity. Just last November, 61% of adults in Great Britain reported an increased cost of living compared to the previous month. Much of the reason for that was linked to the inflation of food prices.

I join Members across the House in thanking those who are going out of their way to support those who need it in their own constituencies, not only with advice but through operating food banks and providing comfort and support. Imogen and her team in the Salvation Army in Keighley, who I have met many a time, do fantastic work to help families not only in Keighley but across the wider Worth valley area in my constituency. I pay particular tribute to her and her team.

[John Lamont]

During this debate, much discussion has been about food banks. It is important that we also recognise food larders—I have a number in my constituency —where large shops and supermarkets donate their food at the end of the day or before the sell-by date. They minimise food waste and enable people to access low-cost or free food that they would otherwise have to pay for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he must have known what I was coming on to in my speech. There are many other organisations and companies that are producing excess amounts of food. We need to reduce food waste, which is ridiculously high in this country, and utilise and redistribute high-quality food through a localised logistics system or a national strategic approach. Those at both grassroots and national level need to be thanked, but much more work is needed to focus on reducing food waste to help those on lower incomes.

Lower-income families spend a large proportion of their budget on food—about 14% in the UK compared to 9% for higher-income households—making those who are more vulnerable much more exposed to price spikes. We have already heard that the price of flour has increased by 19% and milk by about 46% in a relatively short period of time. As well as the vulnerability sitting with those low-income households in terms of their purchasing power, it also sits with the primary producer: the farmers and growers who are exposed to those spikes. They are not only exposed to their own vulnerability; they also lack resilience because they are entered into contracts with unfair terms and unfair adjustment mechanisms linked to supply and demand, and they have to compete against commodities and food that can be produced at much cheaper prices in places with different standards.

While the end price for some food products fluctuates for the primary producer—we have seen that with lamb, beef and milk prices this year—for others they do not. For example, in the arable sector, cereal prices are linked to global commodity prices and some of those feed wheat prices have not really changed in the last 20 years. Exposing those primary producers to fluctuating prices depending on what they are producing, but not mitigating the increase in associated input costs for producing that food, directly hits food inflation prices.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned the vulnerability associated with farm-gate prices. Return rates for our farmers sit at about 1%, if not at all, and therefore many of our primary producers are not even breaking even. That is why the Baroness Batters farming profitability review was welcomed, although it was frustrating that the Government held that report back. They did not give the opportunity for it to be debated on the Floor of the House through an oral statement; they just relied on a written statement. I encourage the Minister to allow time for us to get to grips with debating such a significant and valuable report so that all Members can contribute towards it. A key recommendation in that report was around the supply chain, which, as I think has been acknowledged, is not fit for purpose and disadvantages primary producers. That is why we want more funding and power going to the Grocery Code Adjudicator.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) highlighted the challenges around input costs increasing for our food producers and farmers. That has not been helped by policy choices and tax choices brought forward by the Labour Government in the last 18 months. Let us look at the rise in labour costs: the Bank of England says that the increasing costs associated with labour through the rise in employer national insurance, coupled with the rise in the national minimum wage from £11.44 to £12.21 an hour—a rise of about 6.7%—has dramatically impacted not only the horticultural sector, but many of those food-producing businesses and large employers.

In April, employer national insurance rose from 13.8% to 15%, while the threshold has significantly reduced, falling from £9,100 to £5,000 per employee annually. That disproportionately affects companies who employ lower-paid, younger and part-time workers, many of whom are employed in the horticultural industry and the food-producing sector. That is, of course, combined with uncertainty around levels of investment. We have seen the changes to inheritance tax come through, and that is holding back a level of investment: many of those involved in the food supply chain want to invest, but are holding back due to uncertainty about being able to mitigate the inheritance tax changes coming down the line.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent picked up on, we have also seen new regulation, particularly for the dairy industry, and the hurdles that those sectors need to jump through simply to get their food product on the table. New regulation is having inflationary challenges: the un-Employment Rights Bill worked its way through the House and led to stagnation in business decisions, with investment held back from moving into automation. I am being contacted, as I am sure other Members are, by many employers who are not willing to risk employing people because of the challenges associated with the Employment Rights Act. I dare say many of those are young people and those with special educational needs or learning challenges, who want to get their first step on the employment ladder, but many of those businesses are holding back, which is leading to inflationary challenges.

There is also the extended producer responsibility tax, which has been recognised by not only the British Retail Consortium but the Food and Drink Federation as creating an inflationary challenge for our food sector, estimated to be about £1.4 billion, which will be passed on to consumers by those supermarkets. The British Retail Consortium believes that 80% of those EPR costs will be passed on to consumers, which will lead to higher food prices. Then there are the increasing energy prices; the funding being taken away from our primary producers—our farmers—such as delinked payments dramatically reducing in a short period of time to £600 as an annual payment, where just two years ago they would have been receiving much more; and challenges with the fertiliser tax and sustainable farming incentive.

That just adds to the inflationary challenges associate with food prices, which are predominantly hitting those on the lowest incomes. I ask the Minister not only what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be doing, but what conversations they will be having with the wider Government Departments. It is fine to have a food security strategy, but if that does not sit at the heart of Government, it is for the birds. The reality is that, if it sits under a Secretary of State who has responsibility for food but is not bought into by the likes of the Chancellor and those who are making fiscal adjustments, it will not have the positive impact that it needs to; we have seen that from the last two Budgets that have come out of this Labour Government.

I also want to understand from the Minister what recommendations she and her Department will be taking forward at speed—not only the few announced by Baroness Batters’ profitability review, but that specifically address food inflation challenges, give fairer reassurance to our farmers that farm-gate prices will increase and they will get what they deserve for the primary product they are producing and, ultimately, help those on the lowest incomes across all our constituencies with the cost of living.

Rural Communities

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It has been clear that this Government have been a disaster for rural communities. We have heard that loud and clear in the many excellent contributions from Opposition Members that have highlighted the deep concerns of many of our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) highlighted the challenge of the family farm tax, the challenge faced by pubs, and the challenge of funding rural councils such as North Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) highlighted the funding challenges that Gloucestershire county council faces and the implications of the changes to shotgun licences, which will be disastrous for our shooting community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who is a doughty campaigner for our rural community, highlighted the challenges associated with the pig industry, the shooting industry and the family farm tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who I was proud to serve with as a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before the general election, highlighted the challenge of the family farm tax for his constituents, the way that this Government have cut productivity grants, the implications of the Baroness Batters review, and the fact that the Government have not even announced yet what they will do on the 57 recommendations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) highlighted the implications for many rural local authorities of measures such as the cut to the rural services delivery grant. He also highlighted the impact of the family farm tax and the family business tax on the wider supply chain. That is impacting many of the family businesses that support our farmers.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the shadow Minister as aghast as I am to hear Labour Back Benchers taking credit for the substantial U-turn on the family farm tax, as though it was inevitable, when it was they who introduced the tax?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree with the hon. Member, and I will come back to that, because it is ridiculous. My hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made the critical point that this Government should stop playing cat and mouse with our rural businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) referenced the fact that rural Britain and our rural fishing communities have lost trust as a result of this Government’s choices. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly highlighted the challenges being faced in her constituency and the north of Scotland right now as a result of the bad weather, and the fact that it is our farmers who are doing the hard work to support our rural communities.

Throughout the debate, we have heard about the immense pressure that our entire hospitality sector is being put under. I heard it from my own constituents Michael, Kath and Jodie at the Dog and Gun pub in the Worth valley just before Christmas. We now know that since the autumn Budget alone, more than 1,100 pubs and restaurants have closed, and more than 89,000 hospitality workers have lost their job. The rise in employer national insurance, the rise in the minimum wage, the Unemployment Rights Bill—these measures are making doing business nearly impossible. The Government are robbing many young people of their first job opportunity and are tearing the heart out of our rural economies.

All that is in addition to the skyrocketing business rates being foisted on our pubs by this Government. Many are looking at 30% increases in their valuation rates, a staggering amount that they will simply not be able to afford. The Conservatives would scrap business rates in full, so why on earth will the Labour Government not do it? Is it any wonder that, up and down the country, it is harder and harder for Labour MPs to find a pub that will serve them? However, if they thought the situation was bad for pubs, it is just as bad for our farmers.

Let us look at what rural Britain has been hit by in the last 18 months alone through the choices of this Labour Government. De-linked payments have been dramatically reduced. Capital grants have been closed overnight. The sustainable farming incentive has been stopped with no warning—and how embarrassing was it when Ministers were forced to admit that they had wrongly refused SFI funding to about 3,000 farmers when they shut the scheme? That was pure ignorance and incompetence. The farming budget has been slashed, and is now referred to as the farming and nature budget, a combined term to create the false impression that the Government actually care and that funding has increased.

There are new taxes on fertilisers, and on double-cab pick-up trucks. There are plans to reclassify shotgun licences, making it harder and more expensive to renew and apply for a licence. Country pursuits and sports that drive the rural economy are to be banned, and a land use framework threatens to take 18% of our land out of UK food production. We have a US trade deal that totally destroys the UK bioethanol industry, and robs our farmers of a sixth of the domestic wheat market. Prime agricultural land is being covered in solar panels by the Energy Secretary, regardless of local opinion or food security concerns.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about a matter that I raised in another Opposition day debate before the summer? Not only are solar farms taking over agricultural land, but no research has been done on thermal runaway and what would result from the evaporation of heavy metal output on to that agricultural land.

[Robbie Moore]

My right hon. Friend’s excellent point feeds into the narrative that this Government are not making the sound decisions that we want for our rural economy; they are industrialising much of our prime agricultural land with heavy metals that will damage soil nutrients.

Closer to home for me in Keighley are the plans to roll out England’s biggest wind farm on our protected peatland. It is a disgrace that the moratorium on onshore wind has been removed by this Labour Government. The young farmers grant has been cancelled for the first time. Our rural councils have been hit hard too: the £110 million rural service delivery grant, which supported many rural communities, has been axed. Fairer funding for rural councils has been scrapped, and the £2 bus fare cap has gone, which makes it more expensive for people to travel around our rural areas.

To top it all off, there are the 14 months of anxiety over the disastrous family farm and family business tax—14 months in which families who have worked hard all their lives have been completely terrified about their future. Parents and grandparents of young farmers have been in tears, and yes, lives have been lost, only for the Government to finally admit what was obvious to everyone else from the start. It is disgraceful to see some Labour MPs treating this as a victory lap, and seeing others now come out of the woodwork to say that, actually, they supported these changes all along is even worse. The reality is that right up until Christmas, Ministers were adamant that there would be no changes in APR and BPR. Labour Members voted against this policy four times, and only one of them had the backbone to vote against the Chancellor.

Time and again, this Labour Government have failed to understand and, worse, have ignored rural Britain. As a result, family businesses’ confidence is now at a 15-year low. The Government’s own farmer opinion tracker shows that only one in three farmers in England feel positive about their future. A third of farmers are planning to scale back investment because of this Government’s policies, a record number of farms have closed since Labour came to office, and the Government’s own profitability review is being rolled out at the slowest of speeds.

I urge every hon. Member who has sought to defend the Government’s record in this debate to get real and recognise the dire situation that rural Britain is in. This Government have chosen to ignore warnings, dismiss experience and gamble with the livelihoods of the people who feed this country and care for its countryside. Farmers and rural communities see exactly what is happening, and our pubs and hospitality sector are struggling. They feel it, and they are paying the price for it. Rural communities will not forget who stood with them and who turned their back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Here we are, at the 11th hour, on the very last day before Parliament rises for Christmas, and the Secretary of State has left it until now to publish Baroness Batters’ profitability review —48 days since it was handed to her. She has tactically left it buried in her Department until well after the Budget and purposely until after the crucial Finance Bill vote earlier this week, in which 333 Labour MPs backed the implementation of the family farm tax—all in the knowledge that whatever the recommendations in the profitability review, the Government’s financial assault on our farmers was locked in. What message does that say to our hard-working farmers?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am proud that this Government commissioned Baroness Batters to do the review into farm profitability, which is a lot more than the Conservatives managed to do in 14 long years. We will be taking forward a number of her recommendations, but, as I said, we will reply in full in the new year. We commissioned her because she has great experience and expertise. There are many ways in which we are unlocking profitability, not least the planning reforms that myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government are introducing to make it easier for farmers to build on-farm reservoirs, polytunnels and various other things that will diversify their farms. We are bringing down the barriers, which is something that they long called for, but they saw none of that action under the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the devastating impact that VAWG has on victims and their families; it can affect every aspect of their lives, and I commend her brave constituent for coming forward with her experiences. That is why the strategy being announced today adopts a truly whole-system approach and unites action from every area of Government, including the criminal justice system, as well as health, education, housing and more. However, action must be backed with investment, and that is why in May we announced almost £20 million to provide vital support for victims of VAWG.

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

Happy Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

Earlier this year, I was successful in my campaign to increase the ridiculously short sentences handed down to three vile grooming gang members in my constituency. However, I spoke to at least one victim in my constituency who has told me that she did not know that the sentences of her abusers could be referred as unduly lenient. As the VAWG strategy is released today, will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss introducing a new statutory duty on authorities, mandating that victims of crimes must be informed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme?

[The Solicitor General]

This year I expect to have received in the region of 900 referrals to look at sentences under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It is an important part of our criminal justice system that some cases can be referred for a review. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue further.

Water Scarcity

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing a really important debate on water security and resilience—a topic that has not had as much focus as it deserves for a long time. Water is a vital resource, but one that has over the last half century, unfortunately, received nowhere near enough attention. We are now reaping the consequences of that inaction. In simple terms, our population is 10 million people greater than it was 30 years ago and we have not constructed any new reservoirs in that period; that is why we have ended up with the challenges that we have heard about.

The Environment Agency estimates that, driven by population growth and climate change, there will be a shortfall of nearly 5 billion litres of water a day in this country by 2055—the equivalent of a third of current public consumption. Water scarcity is of course important when we consider drinking water, but there are also dangerous knock-on effects for the environment and for food production, as has rightly been said. Over-abstraction of stretched water sources is having a huge impact on vital habitats such as chalk streams; this year alone, record-breaking droughts have cost arable farmers approximately £800 million in lost production. This was the second-worst harvest on record, and our horticultural industry has been severely impacted.

The hon. Member for Horsham rightly talked about the challenges facing chalk streams and infrastructure, and about the lack of strategy planning for water security and resilience. He talked about the implications for his farming community, where there are water-leakage issues with water companies. Indeed, Yorkshire Water represents my constituency, and we have had hosepipe bans consistently for months now. Given that in September we were at 31% capacity, it is not good enough for water companies across the country, including Yorkshire Water, not to put the level of investment into dealing with not only leakages but water storage capacity-related issues. That is not acceptable for many of our constituents.

[Anna Dixon]

As neighbouring MPs, the hon. Gentleman and I have a shared interest in Yorkshire Water’s performance. As he set out, this is not a recent problem; it has been going on for decades. Given his previous role in the last Government, would he take some responsibility for the consequences of the lack of funding for the infrastructure of our water system?

[Robbie Moore]

As the hon. Member will know, it is down to the regulator to set how much a water company is able to spend on infrastructure projects. Ofwat has not provided water companies with the flexibility they need to provide the correct level of investment. There is significant frustration about that, and that is coupled with frustrations about our planning system that have prevented large water storage schemes from progressing through the system. It is really disappointing that this Labour Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is progressing through the House, does not address any of the issues associated with the challenges of increasing water storage and water resilience in this country. That is a real missed opportunity by this Labour Government.

We all know that the last Government took some steps to address the risks of water scarcity. We set a clear direction through the Environment Act 2021 to reduce water consumption by 20% per person by 2038. Although the target will ease demand, we should still be planning to address the larger challenges around increasing water storage. I was proud to help develop the last Government’s plan for water, which set clear objectives to improve efficiency, reduce leaks and plan for increased supply. It is encouraging to see that the Government have announced a further 670 million litres of daily water supply through the proposed new reservoirs, but I challenge the Government on the speed of delivering them, including the Fens reservoir, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). It is frustrating that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—a key piece of legislation—has not addressed those challenges on the speed of delivery.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Weir Wood and Ardingly reservoirs in my constituency are covered by South East Water, which, out of the blue, wants to build an overland emergency pipe to improve water resilience, but there has been no consultation or engagement with businesses and residents even though the pipe will affect 58 residences and homeowners, as well as the Bluebell railway line. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the issue is a lack of consultation?

[Robbie Moore]

Yes—absolutely. My hon. Friend has spoken to me on many occasions about her challenges with South East Water, which is not investing sufficiently in increasing water storage capacity. I know there is a meeting tonight to address some of those challenges, but South East Water seems to be consistently chasing its tail and not interacting enough with my hon. Friend, in whose constituency these reservoirs are, or with wider water users. More openness and transparency should be expected from South East Water.

Although new reservoirs are definitely needed—I think all Members in this Chamber would concur on that—we must have a broader conversation about water in this country, and most importantly, how we value water. Water can have a positive or negative value depending on whether one’s constituents are being flooded or whether one’s area needs to store more water. At the moment, we are wholly reliant on water companies to deliver major infrastructure and reservoir projects. When a price review index is set by a regulator in a five-year rolling strategy, it is not providing the flexibility that the Government require to increase water storage.

I encourage the Government to go further to provide more certainty on increased water storage beyond that which has already been announced. Would it not be better to look at how we can deliver greater water storage capacity in a dispersed way? We should empower smaller-scale projects on private land, which could involve incentivising farmers or landowners, potentially financially, to not only go above and beyond the water storage capacity they need for their own usage, but to store water on their land and then release it to a water grid. I encourage the Government to look at different ways of attracting private sector investment to increase water storage capacity, rather than it being the water company’s responsibility to do that. We must think outside the box on this water resilience issue.

Likewise, farmers and landowners do a great service when they allow their land to be flooded during rainy periods. I remember very well, having previously been the water Minister, that I met many farmers who had been flooded during Storm Henk and Storm Babet. Environment Agency assets had burst, and the Environment Agency was saying to me—the current Minister may be getting the same response—that we must not look at dredging or removing vegetation from our man-made assets to get water to flow better through the system. If she is getting that advice, as I did, I would encourage her to push back and say that, as well as trying to build better flood alleviation schemes, we should look at those strategies for water to be stored to potentially deal with some of our water scarcity issues we have.

Vast amounts of water are there for us all to see when the land is flooded, and there is an opportunity to use that land to deal with water scarcity issues. At the moment, far too much water is going out to sea during rainy periods and then, come summer, as we have all experienced with another drought, we cannot deal with the water resilience issues.

Finally, I strongly encourage the Minister to look at how we can expand and develop the relationship and the flexibility between the internal drainage boards, the Environment Agency, and landowners and farmers who want to increase water storage and capacity on their farm but also want to move water through the system. The catchment-based approach of IDBs and their grassroots nature mean they are doing some excellent work across the country. While they are facing challenges, the way that they are moving water across our farmland and farm businesses is a huge success story.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what level of investment the Government are making beyond the current promises about existing reservoirs that have been announced. How will the Minister deal with the planning challenges to ensure that we get more smaller-scale reservoirs built at speed? What future legislation is she planning to present to the House beyond the missed opportunity of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which does not deal with water resilience or security measures? What additional pressures are the Government putting on water companies like Yorkshire Water to deal with water leakage, despite us seeing hose pipe bans and dealing with challenges around water security? We have heard South East Water, Yorkshire Water, Southern Water and Thames Water all mentioned in this debate, but we do not have certainty from the Government that they are putting enough pressure on those providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that lovely invite. Visiting a chalk stream sounds beautiful—perhaps in springtime, when it is looking particularly gorgeous, or in summer.

I agree with so many of the points made—even those made by the shadow Minister—about farming, what we can do to support farmers and how we can make it easier for them to store water on their land. At this moment, I cannot commit to saying exactly where my thinking is on this, but I can say I am looking at it extremely closely: how can we make it easier for farms to become more resilient and for farmers to store water when it rains, so that it is there when they need it? I have also been looking closely at the interestingly titled WAGs—I thought that meant something else entirely, but as we all know stands it for water abstraction groups. I have been looking at how they have been doing some of that work.

[Robbie Moore]

Landscape recovery schemes are a great way of dealing not only with water quality schemes, but with water resilience strategies. Will the Minister commit to working with her colleagues to look at removing the one-year break clause that now exists within landscape recovery schemes, because it makes it very difficult for anyone willing to get involved to sign up?

[Emma Hardy]

I commit to taking that to the farming Minister to have a thorough look at it. I am acutely aware of how difficult farmers have had it this year. The flooding in the winter and the drought in the summer have been devastating for them, so I am really keen to see what we can do.

There was a call for a campaign on the preciousness of water, but one already exists: the water efficiency fund campaign, the chair of which will be announced in the new year. It is a fund by Ofwat looking into the communications we need around water and how precious it is.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), keeps wanting me to give him spoilers, but I will continue to refuse to give spoilers on exactly what will and will not be in the White Paper. As has been announced—he knows this already—we are going to look at having one powerful regulator and a joined-up, comprehensive approach to regulation across the whole of the industry.

I completely agree with the point that was made about fragmentation; there are so many different plans involved in how much water we need. We need to look at how we can streamline this, make it more straightforward and hold people to account for who is delivering what and when. There is much more to come in the White Paper, as well as the legislation following it.

Land Use Change: Food Security

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. We have had valuable contributions from Members across the House. I thank everyone for contributing to this debate on land use and food security, which matters to many of our constituents. May I also use this opportunity to welcome the Minister to her place? I think this is the first time that the two of us have been opposite one another. I would like to work constructively with her as we go forward, to ensure that food security is at the heart of Government policy.

As we all know, land is a finite resource—no one is making any more land—so a national conversation about how we use our land and what use we put it to is crucial. Most importantly, we must ensure that food security is at the heart of that conversation. Right now, as we speak in this Chamber, farmers outside are protesting against the direction in which this Labour Government are taking our food security agenda—most pressingly because of the Budget next week and the issue of the family farm tax, which I will come to. As a result of the choices that the Government have made over the last 16 or so months, we are, quite simply, in a food and farming emergency.

The sustainable farming incentive has been mentioned, but I want to talk to the challenges that many of our farmers are facing to do with cash flow and the cash-flow pressures on our farming businesses. These are the result of the sustainable farming incentive being chopped and the implications of the delinked payments being dramatically reduced to an annual payment of £600 in years six and seven of the transition period. Those dramatically reduced payment rates are having an impact on cash flow. The stopping of capital grants is also having an impact on many of our farming businesses. The end of the fruit and vegetables scheme—it was disbanded with no announcement beyond the end of this calendar year—is also impacting many of our horticultural businesses and has created huge uncertainty for our many farming businesses.

Then there are the taxes announced by the Chancellor, including the dramatic increase in employers’ national insurance and the increase in the minimum wage. That has created a disparity between those on the minimum wage and those wanting to get a bit more, and has imposed a huge additional burden on many of our farming businesses. Business rates relief has been significantly reduced, while the fertiliser tax and the double cab pickup tax have been implemented. Those are all decisions that the Chancellor has made in the last 16 months or so, and which have impacted the cash flow of many of our farming businesses. Banks are now speaking to our farming businesses and wanting certainty that they will be able to service their debt. Why? Because many of our farming businesses have an average rate of return of 1%, if not less—sometimes they do not even break even. They are now therefore struggling to provide certainty to the banks that they will be able to service the debt that they hold.

All that is before we start talking about the family farm tax. Simply reducing a 100% relief on agricultural and business property to a threshold of £1 million will impact every farming or family business across the country. The average size of a farm is about 200 acres. Once we take into account the value of the farm land, the cottage, the growing crops, the stocks in store and the machinery, the value will be well above the £1 million threshold, thereby exposing every farming business to an inheritance tax liability of over 20%—one that they simply will not be able to pay. That is the elephant in the room, which not one of the Labour Members spoke about in their speech, despite this being a debate about food security.

[Chris Hinchliff]

My constituents have raised many of the concerns that the hon. Member has just described about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief, which I recognise. However, will he say whether his party recognises any of the points that the Government are making about that? Do they accept that some improvement could be made to the previous agricultural property relief? Or would the hon. Member just return it to how it was and not make any changes whatsoever?

[Robbie Moore]

Our position on the family farm tax is absolutely clear: the 100% relief on APR and business property relief needs to remain in place. That is why, as the Conservative party, we are absolutely clear that the family farm tax needs to be axed. When we come to the vote on the Finance Bill, I hope that the hon Member will join us on this side of the House and put his words into action by voting against this disastrous tax policy that this Labour Government are bringing about.

It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), despite being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, did not mention the inheritance tax changes once in his contribution.

[Wendy Morton]

On the point about the Budget, I hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate. She has made several speculative announcements and some U-turns on various tax and financial policy decisions in the last 16 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that she still has the opportunity, if she so wishes, to change her mind?

[Robbie Moore]

I do hope that the Chancellor is listening to this debate and also that she engages with the farming community. It is incredibly disappointing that the Chancellor has not once met with the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association or the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers in the 12 months since the last Budget was announced. It is a disgrace. Therefore, what is the Minister doing to convince the Treasury to axe the family farm tax—the reduction of the 100% relief on agricultural and business properties?

If it was not enough for the Government to go after our elder generation and our family businesses, they are also going after our next generation, with the decision to scrap the £30,000 grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers. It is an absolute disgrace. Then we have the land use framework consultation, which is setting a direction of taking about 18% of land out of food production for other things—whether it is energy security, housing, biodiversity, offsetting or nutrient neutrality—and away from increasing food productivity. All that is on top of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which further empowers Natural England, not to acquire land at market value, but to acquire it at agricultural value, disregarding hope value. That all suggests that this Government are not interested in food security.

We have yet to receive the findings of the road map for farming, and Baroness Batters of the other place has spent a good deal of time—six months—producing a profitability review, which is on the Secretary of State’s desk. That was meant to be published before the Budget, but what has the Secretary of State said? It will not be published before the Budget, but before Christmas. I ask the Minister a second question: where on earth is that profitability review? Why will it not be published before the Budget, so that we can at least use it to urge the Chancellor to do the right thing? I call on the Government to release the profitability review this week, so that the farming community, stakeholders and all Members of Parliament can digest it before the Budget next week.

I cannot stress how urgently we need clarity and certainty from the Government. The implications of the land use framework consultation; the profitability review not being published; the increased taxes on our farming businesses; the decisions to dramatically reduce delinked payments and close the SFI—these are all causing huge uncertainty. What does it say to our many farmers who are outside this building protesting right now when a Chancellor is making those decisions and is not even willing to engage? The emotional toll on our farming community is stark. I therefore urge the Government to have the decency to engage urgently, before the Budget next week, so that our farmers can have clarity on how they use their land.

The Farming Minister will no doubt say that food security is national security, as the Prime Minister has already said. But those are only warm words if they are not backed up with sound policymaking across Departments that brings out a proper food strategy, has all-Government buy-in—including from the Treasury—and does not have a huge, detrimental impact on how our farmers use their land or on their hopes to increase food security for the good and the health of the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The right hon. Lady is correct, but I am trying to get this into perspective in terms of overall land use.

There have been many calls for the land use framework to be published. I hope I can reassure hon. and right hon. Member that we will publish it early next year. Having looked at some of it, I am totally fascinated by it; when we publish it, I think we will have very many interesting debates about what it demonstrates. As I see it, the food strategy goes together with the land use framework, which goes together with the farming road map—all of which are in parallel production even as we speak.

[Robbie Moore]

Cash flow challenges are hitting many of our farming businesses right now. Baroness Batters, of the other place, has produced a profitability review, which seems to be hidden in the depths of the Department at the moment. Will the Minister guarantee that the profitability review will be published this week, before the Budget, so that all our farmers, the stakeholders and us, as Members of Parliament, can scrutinise it and lobby the Chancellor to make the right decisions before the Budget next week?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I do not think that the lack of appearance of Baroness Batters’s report has stopped anyone lobbying the Chancellor; lobbying is happening outside even as we speak.

[Robbie Moore]

But will it be published?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course it will be published.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the Budget?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course it will be published, and it will be published this year. I cannot think of any Government who produce large reports on matters of interest in the week before the Budget. The hon. Gentleman can expect to see it this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the EFRA Committee in evidence, I think last week.

I could understand why the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills would be worried if solar farms were planned to take up more than 0.4% of land in England in the next period, up to 2035, but they are not. Also, the 1.5 million homes that this Government have said they will deliver in this Parliament are likely to take up approximately 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land. That is quite a small land take to transform the lives of the many hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in need of homes. The Government are quite right to pursue a target of 1.5 million homes, and clearly one needs to build those homes on land. As I said, 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land, is the approximate amount of land that will be needed to ensure that we can house many people who currently do not have the prospect of having a home of their own.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Secretary of State will know that farmers play a key role in enhancing nature and access to it, but that farmers can do so only when it is financially viable and their businesses have certainty from the Government. Yet with the sustainable farming incentive chopped, de-linked payments slashed, capital grants cut, the family farm tax looming and a profitability review completed but deliberately held back from the public until well after the Budget, this Government have created a food and farming emergency, and when our farmers suffer, so does nature. What real, tangible reassurance can the Secretary of State give our farmers right now so that they can stay afloat, produce food, and deliver for nature and the environment?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am delighted to be at these questions for the first time, but I must say that the Conservatives have some brass neck. Under their Government, they could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget. We have got more Government money into the hands of farmers than ever before, and a record number of farmers are involved in environmental land management schemes. We have a proud record of supporting our farmers; the Conservatives sold them down the river on trade deals.

Draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

The official Opposition recognise the need to keep our environment free from pollutants. We recognise that the use of mercury, and its impact on the environment, has increased in the industrialised age. It is right that we take steps to reduce mercury use where possible, and that we work with international partners to do so. However, it is crucial that we do so as a Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom.

Last year, the EU took further steps to continue the phase-out of mercury by significantly restricting the export, import and use of mercury for dental purposes. At the time, that created great concern in Northern Ireland, where dentistry practices said that they simply were not ready for mercury-free dentistry and the extra costs that the phase-out would create for the sector. The Government secured a derogation on dental amalgam for Northern Ireland that would end on 31 December 2034, or before that if dental amalgam was similarly phased out across Great Britain.

Do the Government believe that that decade-long window gives the Northern Ireland dentistry sector sufficient time to adapt to the regulations that will be baked in by this legislation? At a time when dentists in Northern Ireland are warning that they are already making a loss on routine procedures, what do the Government estimate the transition will cost? Do they have an understanding of the timeframe for the phase-out of mercury in dentistry practices UK-wide, and do they anticipate that the deadline will be before the EU derogation ends in Northern Ireland?

Although the derogation is welcome, do the Government recognise that there is an issue with the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, given the remaining influence of EU rules and regulations? What reassurances can the Minister give, in an age of dynamic alignment, that Northern Ireland will remain firmly under the authority of Stormont and Westminster, and not Brussels?

I note that an impact assessment has not been produced for the draft regulations, because, in the Government’s words, they consider that they will have no or very little impact on the business sector. However, given the concerns of the dentistry sector that I have raised, will the Minister outline why no impact assessment has been produced?

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The thanks of Conservative Members go out to all the emergency services, our mighty farmers and gamekeepers who have been consistently fighting the horrendous blaze on the North York moors. The Secretary of State is currently pushing a dangerous proposal to ban a vital conservation and land management measure through eliminating the use of controlled burning of heather on moorlands, which manages fuel load and helps to prevent out-of-control fires. Does the Minister now recognise that if the Government’s burning ban and deep peat changes go ahead, they will be responsible for more uncontrollable and far more damaging wildfires that negatively impact wildlife, our precious peatland and rural businesses?

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I do not agree with the shadow Minister. I have chosen my words carefully: this is a complicated set of issues, we are consulting and we will be coming back with our proposals shortly.

Draft Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 General Committees

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

We should all be extremely proud of our animal welfare and food quality regulations. As a nation, we have a proud history of ensuring that food is as safe and high in quality as possible, and that it has not come at the unnecessary distress or harm of any animal. It is important too that our labelling laws are accurate and properly reflect the product being purchased. Free-range poultry is a key requirement for many consumers, and they should expect a minimum standard of freedom for poultry sold as such.

We must, however, recognise that the value consumers place on free-range poultry is primarily due to concerns for the welfare of the animal. It is therefore logical that should a bird have to be kept indoors for its own welfare and to prevent the spread of disease, no welfare violation has taken place. Given a choice between a bird being kept indoors and its contracting avian influenza, we in the Opposition are confident that consumers would rather see the bird’s welfare protected, even if the bird is nominally free range and would be so under normal circumstances, as was laid out by the Minister. It is noted that the statutory instrument will also ensure that poultry producers are not left at a competitive disadvantage. We therefore support the Government’s decision to amend the existing regulations.

Question put and agreed to.