Thames Water: Government Support

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this really important debate. It was good to listen to all the contributions. As we all know, water is vital and we use it every single day, so it is deeply concerning that we have such great challenges in our water industry, particularly those that have been highlighted with Thames Water.

Under the last Government, we uncovered the true extent of the issues with our water system by increasing the monitoring of storm overflows, which no political party or Administration had previously attempted. Back in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored, but when we left office, 100% were monitored. That gave the Government and our regulators a proper and true understanding of the way in which those storm overflows were being used by our water companies.

[John Lamont]

I pay tribute to all the work that my hon. Friend did as a Minister. He has highlighted the percentage of overflows that are now being monitored in England. I am sure he is aware of research by Surfers Against Sewage confirming that 100% of storm overflows in England are now being monitored. In Scotland, the figure is only 4%. Does that not show the huge difference between what is happening here in England, which is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, and what is happening in Scotland, which is far, far worse?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, that is the point: for any Government, regardless of political colour or make-up, to deal with the challenge, they need to understand the true extent of what they are dealing with.

It is frustrating that north of the border only 4% of storm overflows are being monitored. In reference to what is happening with Scottish Water, and to what the devolved Administration north of the border are doing in the Scottish Parliament to tackle challenges of pollution, how can any proper strategy be put in place with no reference point? That is why it is important to get to the 100% level of monitoring that we now have in England, which resulted in the last Administration being able to roll out the plan for water, which was about stronger regulation, tougher enforcement and more investment.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the Thames tideway, which has 25 km of underground capacity that has now been extended from Acton to Abbey Mills. A £5 billion investment has been put into the project, which is now fully operational, having opened in February; I was lucky enough to visit and to go down into it before it was opened. The great thing about the project is that it is now draining about 34 of the most polluting combined sewer overflows in the Thames area, which will help to improve the quality of the water in the Thames.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam rightly raised the concerns about increasing water bills, the lack of trust in Thames Water and the poor level of service that his constituents are experiencing. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) picked up on the same issues and referred to the meeting that I had with her and with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), in the short period for which I was lucky enough to be a Minister in the Department, about the challenges with the Teddington project. I urge the Minister to address those concerns, because challenges arise when there is no proper environmental impact assessment. Concern about the project is rightly being raised—it was certainly a concern that I had—so I urge the Minister to continue to put pressure on Thames Water.

The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) rightly raised the concerns of constituents on Clarence Avenue and in Brixton, relating to water shortages resulting from Thames Water not carrying out its duty to the level of quality that her constituents expect. She also raised concerns about the bill increases of approximately 30% or 31% for some of her constituents.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned the statutory duties that a water company is bound to meet and referred to the poor satisfaction levels that Thames Water is delivering. The hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) rightly raised the challenges that his constituents are experiencing with flooding, and Thames Water’s refusal to take responsibility. Finally, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned challenges relating to Thames Water’s bill increases and the poor service that his constituents experience.

Thames Water is probably the most distressing example of our water system going wrong. Bills are rising by about 33% this year, but unfortunately the Government have failed to take serious action and consumers are paying for it. That comes in addition to the pressures of the cost of living, council tax rises and so on. Rightly, there is huge frustration that Thames Water shareholders have simply wrung the business dry of capital, failed to invest to expand its supply, and failed to invest to clean up sewage spills. Thames Water’s exceptionally poor level of service deliverability has already been mentioned.

The last Administration took steps to address the challenges that constituents and residents face not only in the Thames Water area, but across England. We blocked bosses’ bonuses for water company executives, we ensured that dividends had to be linked specifically to environmental performance and we introduced unlimited civil fines by removing the £250,000 cap. More power was awarded to Ofwat so that it could impose levies on water companies in the circumstances. In August last year, Thames Water was fined £104 million for its failure to avoid sewage overflows. In other instances Thames Water was put under a cash lock-up, which prevents any dividends from being paid out without Ofwat’s approval.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

How much of the fine that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has Thames Water actually paid? How was it allowed to pay out all these dividends in previous years, given the measures that he is setting out? I genuinely cannot understand how that was allowed to continue for so long.

[Robbie Moore]

That brings me nicely to my next point, which is the strength of the regulator. Ofwat has the powers to link dividends to environmental performance —a measure that was awarded to Ofwat—and to ban bosses’ bonuses for executives, but those powers are there should Ofwat wish to use them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that Ofwat is using the powers that it has been awarded, and to ensure that it is being robust in its actions as the regulator? Many hon. Members have rightly raised concerns that Ofwat has not been robust enough.

Much has been said in this debate about nationalising our water industry and particularly Thames Water, but it is false to assume that a struggling private company will cease to struggle purely because it changes hands. Indebtedness does not go away because a company is nationalised—not without a taxpayer-funded bailout, which would mean redress for the failures of Thames Water executives coming out of the pockets of working people. I mention again the example of Scottish Water, north of the border. There have been myriad mistakes at Thames Water, but it is the responsibility of the independent regulator, Ofwat, to right those wrongs and use the powers that have been awarded to it.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I have to ask the hon. Member why he is so against the idea of nationalising water. I am sure he agrees that the whole idea of privatisation is that there is some sort of competition, but there cannot be competition with water, and therefore we cannot guarantee a good service. We are seeing that at the moment, and we saw it under the Conservative Government for a number of years. Does he understand why privatisation cannot really work in this instance?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I simply refer to the fact that since privatisation about £250 billion of private investment has been put into our water companies, not only to improve infrastructure but to help with service delivery—£250 billion that would otherwise have had to come from the taxpayer.

My second point is that the system should work if the regulator is being robust enough. The point that I come back to is that there is a clear argument that the regulator, Ofwat, has not been sufficiently utilising the powers awarded to it by the Government, and therefore it is right that the Government hold it to account to make it as robust as possible. North of the border in Scotland, with Scottish Water, only 4% of storm overflows are even being monitored, and the service and delivery that Scottish residents are facing is in some cases far worse than what we are experiencing from Thames Water. Simply having a nationalisation strategy does not demonstrate better roll-out and service delivery for customers.

There have been myriad mistakes at Thames Water, but it is the responsibility of the independent regulator, Ofwat, to right those wrongs.

[Charlie Maynard]

Could the hon. Member elaborate a little bit on that £250 billion number and where it comes from?

[Robbie Moore]

It is a figure that has been referenced since nationalisation initially took place, and has been well recognised as the amount of money that has been invested into our water companies by the private sector, for the benefit not only of Thames Water but of all the water companies across England.

What is the Minister doing to ensure that Ofwat is utilising the powers awarded to it, and does she have confidence in Ofwat being able to exercise its function? If not, what is the Minister doing about it? Furthermore, the Government need to take action to further protect consumers from the Thames Water fallout. The court settlement that Thames Water secured in February is designed to give everyone involved time to come to a sustainable plan, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us today that her efforts are firmly going towards ensuring that the plan protects consumers.

Finally, I would like to talk about the broader reforms and support that we can offer our water industry. As I and others have rightly said throughout this debate, our water industry is crying out for further investment. We need to think further about how to utilise the opportunities for the water sector across the country. To that end, what consideration is the Minister giving to providing more opportunities for individuals and organisations outside of major water companies to influence improving the water sector, and has she considered the untapped potential to increase water supply and capacity to the thousands of people who are utilising water, and the hundreds of landowners out there who, with the right financial and planning incentives, may choose to further invest in the water industry? That may be an avenue that the Minister may wish to explore.

I again thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for securing this important debate.

Waste Incinerators

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate, in which we have heard incredibly powerful views from all hon. Members who have participated.

Incineration is a strongly felt issue for many people across the country. I have my own strong feelings on the issue. I am familiar with it from my constituency, where we have staunchly campaigned against the Aire valley incinerator, which is due to be constructed, at some stage, on the outskirts of Keighley. It is not yet built, but it was given the green light by Labour-run Bradford council and the Environment Agency some years ago. I put on record the staunch work that the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign group has done for a number of years, working with me and many residents to campaign strongly against the Aire valley incinerator. My view remains as it has been since I was first elected to this place: the Aire valley incinerator should not be built. Similar opinions have been expressed by many hon. Members in this House—although, dare I say, not by the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be staunchly warm to incineration. All other hon. Members have staunchly expressed their views against.

We heard from the hon. Member for Derby South about the Sinfin incinerator, which he has campaigned long and hard to oppose; from the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), who is staunchly against the Corby incinerator; from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), campaigning against the Swadlincote incinerator; from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns); from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), no longer in his place, who is campaigning against the Edmonton incinerator; from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), who is against the Portland incinerator; and from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who raised his concerns about incineration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke against two incinerators in his constituency, Warboys and Envar. He rightly raised concerns that despite him making valid challenges on behalf of his constituents, not only to the Secretary of State but to Ministers, they have not even had the decency to come back to him. I can only urge the Minister to take those concerns to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and hope that a response is received to the planning challenges that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) shared his experiences of a live incinerator in his constituency, giving us the warnings that we all need as we continue our campaigns against incineration in our own constituencies. He was right to highlight the challenges with not only the feedstocks going into that incinerator but the wider problems associated with it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) has campaigned consistently against the Wisbech incinerator. The applicants seemingly decided to get around their application being determined by the local planning authority by making the scheme so big that it would cover six different counties, meaning that a national strategic decision had to be made. He rightly raised concerns around capacity, which as he said already exists in the system. He also raised the huge challenge that, by the time a planning application has been approved for incinerators, technology and the feedstocks that are being incinerated have changed dramatically. This happens even in the case of the incinerator in the Aire valley in my constituency, which dates back to 2015. He is therefore quite right to advocate for the Government to look at that.

Members have consistently raised wider concerns to do with planning applications that are in the pipeline—at the local planning authority or the environment agency—relating to noise, smell and odour, insect infestations and topography. In my constituency, Bradford council, a Labour-controlled local authority, approved a planning application for an incinerator to be built at the bottom of a valley that, when temperature and cloud inversions and the significantly low stack height are taken into account, would cause emissions to get trapped in the cloud and have a detrimental effect on those residents who are higher up on either side of the valley. That is a challenge that we have consistently put to not only Bradford council but the environment agency.

Other concerns to do with consultation processes that have been raised include the lifespan of an incinerator, the decommissioning process once that comes to an end, challenges with the number of job that will be created as a result of a positive incinerator being approved, and the failure of an incinerator to meet the initial expectations around electrical efficiency that are provided when an application is considered. We have also heard challenges around section 106 moneys coming, challenges associated if schools, nurseries and residents are in close proximity to an incinerator, and challenges relating to highways.

Prior to the general election, the last Government rightly paused new incineration licences due to concerns around there already being capacity in the system and oversupply being prevalent. That moratorium expired during the election, and has not been renewed by the new Labour Administration. The end goal of our waste system must be to reduce the volume of residual waste as much as possible. That means absolute focus on reducing, reusing and recycling, but we must also be realistic in recognising that there will always be waste that must be disposed of. While the Conservatives pledged to stop all new incinerators for good and double down on efforts to reduce waste in the first place, Labour has instead attempted to manage the issue of incineration.

In new regulations announced late last year, the Government said that incineration plants would be granted licences only if they can demonstrate that they are reducing landfill. That is a rather low threshold, as almost any waste heading to an incinerator would otherwise be landfilled. More importantly, that criterion misses the key point that methane emissions from landfill will simply be replaced with carbon emissions from waste incineration. In fact, greenhouse gases from incinerators are more intense, as landfill releases its carbon much more slowly than incineration plants. I fear that this landfill criterion is merely an attempt by this Government to give a veneer of environmentally friendly credibility to a policy that actually represents a failure to tackle the broader waste challenge.

Another requirement is that new plants be carbon capture-ready, but one wonders how the Government will assess that criterion when carbon capture technology is still in its infancy and remains unproven. This is not the basis for sensible, long-term policy. Incineration is the dirtiest form of electricity generation in the country, and has a huge impact on local air pollution, as has been raised by many Members across this House when challenging decisions that have been made by their local planning authority or the environmental operational licence that is then awarded by the Environment Agency. They are rightly advocating, on behalf of their constituents, that such decisions should not go ahead as planned.

At the same time, Labour has claimed that it has introduced tough new rules to clean up incineration and is considering introducing a carbon tax on councils that incinerate. That reveals a gaping hole in the Government’s thinking. I ask the Minister: will the Government’s changes to licensing be effective in reducing pollution? If so, why tax cash-strapped councils—or does the tax reveal that the Government expect their licensing policy to fail and are hoping to deter the use of incinerators as a result? Incinerators are dirty and as a result should be taxed as we tax landfill, but clearly a long-term strategy should be adopted to phase out incineration. Why will the Government not commit to that vision?

In its announcement on the new rules, DEFRA explained that the need for new incinerators was small, as waste capacity is now almost sufficient for UK demand. In that case, why will the Government not reassure the thousands of campaigners across the country—many Members on both sides of the House have referenced many who have worked alongside them and I also mentioned the Aire Valley Against Incineration group in my own constituency —and commit to building no more incinerators? Surely we would hope that the existing incineration plants reach the end of their lives, and that we are reducing residual waste sufficiently that we do not require any replacements.

The Government must come forward with a comprehensive vision for the future of UK waste; otherwise, we will be flying blind. I urge the Government to instigate an immediate stop to all new incinerators being built, regardless of whether they have been approved, and whether that approval was through planning permission or an operational licence awarded by the Environment Agency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Back in November, the farming Minister unbelievably said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was striking how many people were coming up to him at farming events and saying, “You’re right to be making these changes to APR and BPR.” Conservative Members have been out and about all over the country; indeed, I was in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire yesterday, and I have not found one farmer who thinks that he is right. In fact, the level of anger and sheer disbelief among our farming community is immense as this Government’s attack on our farming cash flows continues through the dramatic reduction in delinked payments, the sudden stop of the sustainable farming incentive and the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions—I could go on. Business confidence is at an all-time low, so can the Minister provide the name of just one farmer he has spoken to who thinks he and his Government are right to be pursuing these changes?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I suggest that the shadow Minister goes out and speaks to a few more people, because I was stopped in a local village just this weekend and encouraged —[Interruption.] I am not going to name names, but he should check with some of his Conservative candidates in elections. They said, “Keep on going, you are doing the right thing.” The situation is not as the shadow Minister describes. He might do well to look at the figures for projected farm business incomes for this year, which show that in many sectors, those business incomes are doing rather well. That probably explains why people are not as exercised about it as him.

Rural Communities: Government Support

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate, because supporting rural communities has been a persistent challenge across Government. The siloed nature of Government Departments and the false assumption that DEFRA has sole responsibility for rural affairs has sometimes created delay and confusion in delivering the cross-Government support our rural communities need.

The Conservatives recognised this issue when we were in government and took steps to rural-proof the policies of other Departments and to unlock unique funding streams to tackle uniquely rural challenges. The £3 million rural innovation fund, for example, sought to find new answers to problems specific to rural communities, such as connectivity, social isolation and productivity. However, there is much more to be done, such as banking hubs, post office services and the challenges mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), including for areas that have received no hub provision despite having only one bank branch still open. I urge the Minister to ask Treasury colleagues not to wait for that last bank branch to remain before banking hubs can be applied for.

The challenge of higher prices in rural areas coupled with lower income streams has been mentioned, as has the increased overheads for businesses and local services, whether it is GPs or dentists. Those challenges have been exacerbated by the change in employer’s national insurance contributions, which is impacting most of those businesses.

I cannot go any further without mentioning our farming community, which is without doubt the backbone of our rural communities. In many cases, family farming businesses are the core of our rural life and have been for decades, if not centuries. Now, however, we know the damage that Labour’s Budget has caused and the upset and the challenges it has created.

I did not think things could get any worse, but then we had the “cruellest betrayal yet”—not my words, but those of the president of the Country Land and Business Association, who was speaking about last night’s decision to stop the SFI grants. Those grants were promised to our farmers after Labour slashed the delinked payment rates, which is directly impacting many of our farming communities’ cash flows right now in this financial year. I thought that those grants had cross-party support in the House, but it seems not, on the basis of last night’s announcement.

Even though we had a statement, many questions still remain unanswered by the Farming Minister. I hope he will be able to answer questions such as, where is the actual farming budget breakdown for the farmers who were benefiting from SFI applications? Where has the basic payments scheme money that was allocated for the delinked payments gone? When can our farmers expect to see the SFI applications open? Does the Minister realise the absolute challenge and distress that has been caused to many of those who were processing their applications, almost had them ready to go and were about to hit the submit button? They are now sitting in limbo, unsure whether it will be six months or even a year before any confirmation is given?

The debate has focused on many other challenges in our rural communities, whether that is connectivity, transport, health, housing, community cohesion, building, businesses or public services. All those issues are made much more complex and nuanced by the practical challenges of delivering them in a rural community. I hope the Government understand that policies that come out of other Government Departments may work in our city-centre environments, but they often do not work in the countryside.

Funding streams such as the rural services delivery grant, which was worth £110 million, specifically recognised the challenges that rural local councils faced. Yet this Labour Government decided to stop that funding stream, and we have had no indication whatever of what will replace it or when. Cutting vital grants such as the rural services delivery grant does not instil our rural communities with any confidence that this Government will recognise the challenges in our rural communities.

The assault on our farmers has already shaken the faith of millions of people living in our rural communities. Quite rightly, our rural communities, like our farmers, fear that Labour does not understand them and does not care to understand them. I hope the Minister will take on board many of the points that hon. Members have made about the challenges for rural communities.

Bathing Water Regulations

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship., Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this really important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed and made incredibly valid points, which I will pick up on in my summing up of this debate. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are pleased that the River Tone in French Weir has been awarded its bathing water designation. I was the Minister who signed that off when I was in the Department, so I am pleased that that has been welcomed. I also want to thank his predecessor Rebecca Pow for the work that she did in campaigning vociferously to get that bathing water designation in place.

In 2010, 76% of bathing sites were considered good or excellent and by 2024 that figure had reached 90%, which I am sure all of us would welcome. That is despite the criteria changing and becoming much stricter in 2015. And I was proud, as I have indicated, when I was the Water Minister for a brief period in DEFRA to sign off an additional 27 bathing water designations last year, bringing more areas under the spotlight with additional monitoring and ensuring more water companies were then able to be held to account for the pollution that they were causing. It brought the total number of bathing water designations up to 451 sites for the 2024 bathing season. I was proud to see that the River Nidd in Harrogate was one of the rivers awarded bathing water designation and that there was an additional such designation on the River Wharfe. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, the Wharfe was the first to have a bathing water designation on a river. I must congratulate a very active campaign group in my constituency, the Ilkley Clean River group. It was founded by Karen Shackleton, who is an incredible campaigner. She and many others have tirelessly campaigned for improving water quality, not only in the River Wharfe but across the country. I am sure many Members have received emails from this campaign group.

When we announced those 27 bathing water sites to be added to the list, I was also proud to announce the review of such designations. From my experience with having the River Wharfe designated, I felt the bathing water designation regulations at the time were not fit for purpose. I am pleased the Government carried on with that review, which has now taken place. I have seen many contributions to it, not least from the Office for Environmental Protection which in their feedback of November 2024 was supportive of many of the changes that needed to take place.

I shall go through some of those. On dates, for example, I do not feel that it is just to have bathing water designation sites ringfenced only between May and September. As has been mentioned by all Members in their contributions, many of us who are lucky to use a bathing water site are not just doing so between those specific dates but actually throughout the year. Why should we be constrained by having the bathing water designation sites between May and September? It seems right and just that those sites have all-year monitoring, to be able to hold to account those who pollute our rivers but also to make sure the level of resource, whether financial or community, is able to improve the water quality in those areas.

That brings me on to the name “bathing water regulations”. Is it fit for purpose? From my experience in my constituency, once a bathing water designation is approved the assumption is that it is safe to bathe in that area. When bathing water sites are being allocated to rivers, or indeed on our coastal environments, it can be unsafe to swim in those environments given the undercurrents that exist, particularly in river networks. The water quality does not need to be good or excellent. In fact, many of those sites are unfortunately designated as poor. I urge the Government to think about whether it should be changed to something like “clean water status”, so as not to give the impression that it is necessarily safe to bathe.

I would also like to pick up the point on automatic de-designation. This is something I have experienced in my own constituency. We were lucky enough to have the River Wharfe bathing water designated but unfortunately, as probably expected, it has consistently been designated as poor as a river—year on and year on. Fortunately, Yorkshire Water has responded very positively in realising that an additional level of investment needs to go in there. We have seen £15 million spent on improving water capacity and retention, to help with the sewage treatment works in Ilkley. We have now seen an additional allocation of about £45 million being spent in Ilkley to deal with the wider sewage treatment works.

However if one knows the designation is consistently going to be poor, and then after year five drops off and there is no bathing water designation, I fear there is a real risk it reduces the onus on the polluter to do something about this. The polluter may not just be a water company. It may be agri-runoff through phosphorous or nitrate. I know that the civil servants sitting behind the Minister will have listened to many of the conversations that we have been having, and, on that point, I congratulate the civil service on the work that it has done on the regulations and in bringing forward this review.

However, I do feel that, when we are relying on evidence coming forward to secure enough resource or finance to improve things, we sometimes need to rely on longer datasets than just one or two years to see those improvement measures. That relates not only to water companies but the agri-environmental benefit from many of the stewardship schemes that farmers enter into as well. I therefore urge the Government to remove the automatic de-designation.

Then I come on to users, because, at the moment, the regulations specifically relate to those who wish to bathe, but, as has also been indicated by those who have contributed today, we are all using our river networks, our coastal environments, or indeed our lakes for many purposes other than swimming. I do not want to comment on the Lib Dem leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but I am not the only one who goes paddleboarding and ends up underwater. The point is that, under the current regulations, if someone wants to kayak, canoe or paddleboard, that is not sufficient to get a bathing water designation. I therefore urge the Government to look at the users of these sites so that we can ensure that more rivers, coasts and lakes achieve more bathing water status.

On the issue of multiple measuring points, from my own experience from the River Wharfe in Ilkley, a bathing water designation relates to a specific point where that monitoring takes place. In my constituency, that specific point is actually upstream of the outfall from the water treatment works—which Yorkshire Water is rightly putting a huge amount of investment into. That monitoring is pointless if it is upstream. That may be at the point where most bathers bathe, but it is less likely to put pressure on ensuring that polluters are held to account.

I therefore urge the Government to look at having multiple measuring points associated with a bathing water designation. Indeed, as we see more rivers getting allocated bathing water sites—and I was proud to sign off more rivers when I was lucky enough to be the water Minister—I do wish the Government would explore having multiple measuring points, particularly in river environments, because, as the river flows through, bathers are more likely to bathe over a wider stretch, rather than at a single point, as with coastal environments.

I am grateful to Surfers Against Sewage for specifically raising the issue of prior testing with me in advance of today’s debate—indeed, as they have before—because proposals under consideration, including those of sites to be designated going forward, could be tested before the designation is granted. Should those prior tests come back as poor, my worry—indeed, the point has also been raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—is that that could allow a Minister not to grant, or to be less inclined to grant, that bathing water designation. I would not want prior testing to result in a bathing water designation not being given approval, because actually, as I have demonstrated in my own constituency and others, having a bathing water site, in itself, puts that pressure on the polluter, whoever, or whichever organisation, that is.

Forecasting has also been picked up by other Members in this debate. Forecasting is important, because it provides much more onus on future programming to do with finance that may be going into cleaning up the rivers, and enables more comfort for the community in understanding what is happening to improve the water quality at those bathing water sites.

However, as we all know, even when a site is designated as excellent water quality, it could experience a huge amount of rainfall, or potentially a serious pollution incident, but, because the monitoring is taken over a wider period of time—and the designation is therefore taken over a wider period of time—a single issue to do with pollution or a heavy downpour will not necessarily impact the designation itself. Therefore, I think it would be helpful if more awareness was raised. That is about not only additional rainfall events, or additional water entering into the system, but forecasting to better prepare those who do want to bathe, or use that water, to make the right decision at the appropriate time.

I would like to sum up by thanking the Ilkley Clean River Group in my constituency, because it certainly helped me to get a much better understanding, not only when I was first elected to the House in 2019 but in the role that I ended up in, which was as a Water Minister in DEFRA. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, because water quality is a major challenge.

The infrastructure responsible for much of this issue is literally Victorian. It cannot be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed with a dedicated and serious plan. The previous Administration delivered the start of that plan with the “Plan for Water”, and in opposition we will very much welcome working with the Government and, indeed, other parties from across this House to improve water quality. I hope that the Minister will reiterate my thanks to her team, who I know have worked incredibly hard behind the scenes on this issue. I would like to say to the Minister that we would be more than happy to provide support in the right places to make sure that we are all focused on improving water quality.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

When we thought it could not get any worse, the Government roll out their latest attack on our farming community and UK food production, setting the direction that they want to replace food production, with around 20% of farmland being dedicated to solar farms, tree planting, biodiversity offsetting and wildlife habitats, all to meet green targets. The figures are astonishing, with the Government proposing to take well over 1 million hectares out of food production.

The economic analysis already predicts that well over 12,000 farms will be lost within a generation as a result of this Government’s policies. Will the Minister acknowledge that hard-working farmers are being caught in the crossfire in this Government’s dash towards green targets, and does she recognise the fear among our farmers that their policies amount not to food security but food lunacy?

[Mary Creagh]

That is a lot of sound and fury, but this is something the Conservatives were working on in government. This has shades of the deposit return scheme, which was essentially the hon. Gentleman’s legislation, but those on the shadow Front Bench were absent without leave when it came to the vote. We have published a consultation on the land use framework. It has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union and by farmers for giving certainty and security—something that was sadly lacking from the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question, and I am sure the whole House will be sorry to hear of the examples that she raised. She is right to say that all victims ought to be treated with empathy and respect, because victims’ loss of confidence in the criminal justice undermines the entire process of justice. I am working with the CPS to ensure better support for victims in rape and serious sexual offence cases, including by hiring victim liaison officers in teams prosecuting such cases. I had the pleasure of meeting some of those victim liaison officers while visiting the CPS in Cardiff, and I was able to hear first hand about the vital work they are doing to support victims.

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

My constituency is blighted by the shocking crime of child sexual exploitation, and rebuilding trust among victims in our criminal justice system is vital if victims are to come forward. Recently, eight men from my constituency were sentenced for the horrendous gang rape of two children and received shockingly short sentences; one was as low as three years. I have written to the Attorney General on this issue. Does the Solicitor General agree that these weak sentences are hugely damaging trust in our justice system? Will she commit, via the Attorney General, to reviewing them?

[The Solicitor General]

The example that the hon. Member refers to is indeed heinous. The conduct of those who have been involved in such crimes has rightly shocked and appalled people right across the country. He refers to a referral to the Attorney General’s Office, and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on that specific case further.

Rivers, Lakes and Seas: Water Quality

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) on securing this really important debate. Improving water quality is something that we all care about, on all sides of the House. Making sure that all those who pollute are held—in the strongest possible terms—to account and that those who need to carry out improvement measures to improve water quality are incentivised to do so matters to us all. That is why, when the Conservatives were in Government, we took action.

The narrative that has been put across by many hon. Members in their contributions to this debate, that the last Conservative Government did nothing, is for the birds. We brought in the Environment Act in 2021; we introduced a plan for water that was about more investment, stronger regulation, and tougher enforcement. Of course, it is vital to understand where the problem lies, which is why we increased monitoring. Back in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. We are now at 100%.

We have also seen designated bathing water sites improve their water quality status from 2010, when only 76% of bathing water sites were classified as good or excellent. We are now at 90%, despite stronger regulation having been brought out in 2015. We introduced the ban on water company bosses’ bonuses. We linked dividend payments to environmental performance. We removed the cap on civil penalties from £250,000 per incident to an unlimited amount. We also brought forward the largest infrastructure programme, with £60 billion allocated to revamp ageing assets and reduce the number of sewage spills, allocated funds specifically for our farmers to store more water on their land through water management grants and rolled out the slurry infrastructure grant.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Member mentions the monitoring of overflows. Will he put on record for the House how many emergency overflows were being monitored under his Government?

[Robbie Moore]

I come back to the point that monitoring is incredibly important. This is why we brought out a requirement for all water companies to specifically carry out more monitoring: before 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. That is completely unacceptable. We needed to understand the problem so that we could not only use our regulators to enforce water companies to carry out the level of investment we would expect of them, but strongly hold those water companies, and indeed all polluters, to account. I encourage the Government to keep going with that, which is why we have taken a constructive approach to the Water (Special Measures) Bill that is working its way through the House.

There are three points which I want to focus on and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them in her response. First are the points that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), to do with the £35 million allocation to the River Wye action plan, announced earlier this year. The River Wye action plan was specifically designed to address those challenges to do with pollution from our farmers. The plan set out a range of measures to begin protecting the river immediately from pollution and establish a long-term plan to restore the river for future generations. That included requiring large poultry farms to export manure away from areas where they would otherwise cause excess pollution and providing a fund of up to £35 million for grant support for on-farm poultry manure combustion combustors in the River Wye special area of conservation. The plan also appointed a chair.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister why the plan has been dropped, despite those things having been put in place? Where has the £35 million been reallocated? We are now six months into this Labour Government, but yet there has been no announcement on the River Wye and I fear that there will be no action taken. We are almost coming up to a year since that plan was worked on. If the Minister could update the House on that, it would be greatly appreciated.

The second point is the water restoration fund, which was specifically designed to ringfence money that had been collected from those water companies that had been polluting, to focus specifically on improving water quality. The fund, when it was announced, allocated £11 million-worth of penalties collected from water companies to be offered on a grant basis to local support groups, farmers, landowners and community-led schemes. Hon. Members have talked about how good their local campaigners are at utilising funds that are provided to them, and I absolutely endorse that, but that fund was specifically ringfenced for penalty money reclaimed from water companies to be reinvested.

The Government are not taking the water restoration fund forward, so will the Minister accept the Conservative amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill on that point? The water restoration fund came exclusively from water company fines and penalties, which are in addition to any other work the company must carry out to repair breaches that it has caused. Will the Minister explain why the Government are not continuing the fund, and why she does not think it is important that water companies clean up their own mess when money has been collected from them?

[Andrew Cooper]

The previous Government cut the environmental protection budget for the Environment Agency from £170 million in 2009-10 to £76 million in 2019-20. Does the shadow Minister accept that some of the actions that he has spoken about might not have been necessary had the Environment Agency been funded properly to carry out the important work that it was doing?

[Robbie Moore]

We all have to acknowledge that water companies have not been meeting their environmental obligations for far too long. That is why we implemented the monitoring. Regulators—Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency—need robust powers so that they can carry out enforcement.

The water restoration fund ringfenced money collected from the water companies and that allowed farmers, landowners and the many great campaigning organisations that want to carry out nature-based solutions to improve water quality, and there was the additional expectation that water companies put in place their own improvement measures. I ask the Minister: why on earth would the Government not want to continue that approach?

My third point is about bathing water designations, which are a fantastic way of reassuring those who want to bathe in specific areas, whether our lakes, rivers or coastal environments. They also put a greater obligation on the Environment Agency and water companies to carry out additional monitoring.

In May 2024, I was delighted to announce 27 new bathing water sites ahead of the 2024 bathing water season. That brought the number of bathing water sites across England up to 451. In addition, I announced a review of the bathing water regulations, which I had been advocating for some time. Our constituents do not just swim at bathing water sites, but use them for other activities, including canoeing, kayaking and other water-based activities. I very much wanted to see the review of the bathing water regulations, and we announced the change to increase the user basis. I also wanted to see an increase in bathing water designations beyond May to September so that all-year monitoring could take place, and the removal of the automatic de-designation of poor sites so that sites that had been consistently rated poor could keep their designation to keep up the pressure on the water companies and the Environment Agency to continue monitoring. Will the Minister update the House on what is happening with that announcement, which was made last year? What is she doing to ensure bathing water regulations are enhanced and improved?

In the run-up to the general election, Labour made huge promises about what it would do to improve water quality. I feel that it is falling far short on its promises to the electorate. Although we will work constructively with the Government to improve their measures, campaigners—it is not just me—feel that the Water (Special Measures) Bill does not go far enough, and investors feel that they are being penalised while the Government expect them to carry out improvement measures. The Government are penalising our farmers, not only through the family farm tax, but by not providing water grants to them to carry out improvement measures.

Draft Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

The Minister made reference to the fact that this delegated legislation follows on from the work of the previous Conservative Administration, which is why the official Opposition will support the regulatory changes proposed by the Government today. It is right that we continue to review and update the regulations surrounding our customs and border enforcement, and I welcome some of the reductions in the red tape that this legislation represents.

This legislation protects biosecurity and trade between Great Britain and third countries by making sure that SPS controls can be applied to goods entering Great Britain. The control gained from our withdrawal from the European Union gives us a powerful tool, and it is right that we utilise it in full. We must be careful to ensure in future that it is used for the benefit of British farmers, horticulturalists and the wider public. This delegated legislation will do that significantly, while reducing the risks to do with plant health and biosecurity. That is why I and other colleagues in the official Opposition will continue to hold the Government to account on delivering on our food-security targets and our biosecurity obligations. We support the draft regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to wish you and all in the House a very merry Christmas.

Many customers are rightly concerned about Thames Water and the situation that company finds itself in. For the third time of asking the Secretary of State in this Chamber, will he confirm that he will not issue any regulatory easement to Thames Water in his discussions with that company, so that its environmental obligations and service commitments to its customers will not be reduced?

[Steve Reed]

The Government continue to monitor very closely what is happening in Thames Water, and indeed in all the other water companies. The only easement I have ever seen given to water companies over pollution was that of the previous Government, who turned a blind eye as sewage was flooding through our rivers, lakes and seas. This Government are putting the water companies under tough regulatory special measures—measures that the previous Government could have enacted, but failed to enact.

Family Farming in Devon

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) on securing this important debate.

Devon is one of the farming heartlands of England. The rolling fields, so familiar to tourists and locals, are dutifully managed by Devon’s family farmers, over generations upon generations, producing the highest quality of produce. The county is renowned for the diversity of its farming, with a strong mix of dairy, beef and sheep, with some arable, accompanied by many a farm diversification.

Despite that, across the whole of the south-west, the average farm income is approximately £30,000 lower than the national average. It is vital, therefore, that the Government support those farms and family farmers to continue to deliver high-quality food produce, and to maintain our countryside for the future.

A subject on which the Government and I can find common ground is the money released via the Budget to improve the biosecurity facilities in Weybridge, which will help combat the challenges posed by bluetongue and other diseases. It is vital for farmers in Devon and across the country that we tackle any diseases and their threats early, not only to protect livestock, but to prevent costs spiralling out of control as a result of a fully-fledged outbreak.

Unfortunately, that is where the common ground ends. Since the Budget, the Government have chosen to levy a series of shattering changes on farmers, creating uncertainty. There has also been a failure to raise the overall farming budget, amounting to a real-terms cut in funding.

The rapid and unexpected delinking of payments from the basic payment scheme will see huge drops in the money received by farming businesses as soon as next year. For many farms, that change in their financial forecasting will be devastating, with long-term plans scuppered as Government support is pulled out from underneath them.

Likewise, we are still waiting for the Government to outline their transition process from legacy higher level stewardship—HLS—schemes. Although those schemes have been extended by a year, many farmers are still unable to look beyond that term as they do not know what the Government will expect of them as they move towards the sustainable farming incentive. Indeed, many farmers I have spoken to are deeply frustrated that the equivalent SFI options to HLS options have higher payment rates, yet the Labour Government have made a choice not to allow those locked into HLS agreements the ability to easily transfer into the equivalent SFI.

Just last week, we heard of the sudden closure of capital grant schemes, causing deep frustration and confusion to many applicants. Let us not forget that capital grant funds for farmers aimed to deliver environmental outcomes, not just improve business efficiency. However, that funding has been slashed. Farmers and growers are being asked to adapt, and to adopt measures to improve the environment, but they have been left in the lurch by the Labour Government, without having access to important grant schemes that would enable them to do just that.

Only a month ago, we were shocked to hear plans to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments. Yet, just last week, we heard the decision by the Government to remove capital grants. How on earth is a farming business able to forecast its plans with certainty? There are also the increased direct costs expected, such as the carbon tax on fertiliser, which is estimated to increase the cost of fertiliser by £50 a tonne and will undoubtedly have a direct impact on the cost of food and consequentially inflate food prices. Then, in the Budget, we heard of the increase in employers’ national insurance, coupled with the reduction in the associated threshold, an increase in the minimum wage, the double cab pickup tax—I could go on.

Of course, the biggest impact on our Devonshire farmers and on farmers across the country will be Labour’s family farm tax. The average size of a farm in the south-west is around 200 acres. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly outlined the points raised by his constituent who is a dairy farmer. If we take the size of a dairy business coupled with the value associated with the farmland—400 acres was mentioned—the cost and value of the dairy cows, machinery and feedstocks, not to mention the value of the farmhouse and farm buildings, and perhaps any farm diversification project that has been taken into account, we will almost certainly be over and above the cap of £1 million that this Labour Government have chosen to put in place. That applies to both agricultural property relief and business property relief.

As I alluded to, farms in the south-west are even more cash-strapped than the national average. For the many farmers across Devon, the only option under this Labour Government’s implementation of their family farm tax will be to sell assets. But what assets do they sell? Put simply, the combined assault from all measures within the Budget will be fatal for many farms right across the country. That is why the Conservatives want to see this tax reversed. We have forced a vote on that very issue on the Floor of the House tomorrow.

Unsurprisingly, not one Labour MP has contributed to this debate. I only hope that Labour MPs, and indeed this Labour Government, are listening to our British farmers and their constituents, who have raised these concerns time and time again since the Budget. That is why we pledged earlier this year to uprate and broaden the offering of SFI options. But we have heard from many farmers throughout the country that they are unable to get into those new options at the speed at which the previous Conservative Administration—and, it seems, the new Labour Administration—have been giving them out. I can only conclude that the Rural Payments Agency is acting slowly to create an underspend next year for the spending review, to see a slash in the farming budget next year. I hope that is not the case; maybe the Minister will be able to allude to the Government’s intentions.

I know for a fact that many of Devon’s stalwart farmers were alongside not only myself but my colleagues, in Whitehall just a couple of weeks ago, to protest against this Government’s shameful offering to farmers. I just hope that the Government were listening to their fury and their distress, and that they have listened to the comments that by Members from all Opposition parties in this debate, because it matters. The implications for health and wellbeing matter, and the mental health strain that has been put on our farming community matters. So I say to the Minister: listen carefully to what is being said to you; listen to the professional advisers out there. I only hope that you will change course imminently.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is always a pleasure to serve when you are in the Chair, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for bringing this debate in his characteristically forceful way. He seduces; he charms; he flatters. I particularly enjoyed his account of the centuries it has taken to produce the wonderful farms we see in Devon—centuries, of course, that preceded the current agricultural property relief regulations. I also enjoyed his account of the weather that the previous Government created, which left the farming sector in such a parlous state for the new Government to inherit. But he also encouraged me to visit Devon, and I can tell him that, actually, within my first 10 days of being appointed as Minister I had made my way to Devon, as I had done in opposition on a number of occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

However, I also frequently heard from local people that they were concerned about others coming to buy up land over the top of local people. I suspect that we can share our concerns on some of these issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referenced the excellent debate that he secured in this Chamber last year on the future of Dartmoor, which I will come on to.

Many important points have been raised, and I have listened carefully to all the thoughtful contributions. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I will go away and look carefully at her points about the moorland stocking rates, which I know my officials are looking at closely, and how they affect Greenwell farm. I always listen closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) also made important points. I was struck by the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), particularly around border controls. I remind him that one of the first things we did was to strengthen those controls, so I very much agree with him about threats at the borders.

We absolutely recognise that the farming sector is vital. Family farms are crucial: they produce our food, steward the environment and look after nature. We are all indebted to farmers across this country for doing that, and we all recognise the stresses and strains, the mental health challenges, which the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, and the pressures from the weather and from disease in the last few years. That is why this Government are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years—the largest amount ever directed towards sustainable food production, rural economic growth and the recovery of nature in our country’s history. That should send a powerful message to farmers about the value we place on all that they do. Within that, we have committed £1.8 billion for environmental land management schemes, delivering improvements to food security and biodiversity, tackling carbon emissions and improving water quality, air quality and flood resilience.

I will address the point about basic payments made at the beginning by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock. He is right: we are accelerating the end of the era of payouts to landowners simply for owning land, and the fastest reductions in subsidies will be for those who have historically received the largest payments. For example, it is true that the 4% who received more than £100,000 in subsidies in 2020 will receive no more than £8,000 in 2025, whereas the majority of farmers who receive less than £10,000 to start with will see a gradual reduction in their delinked payments, but they will all have access to ongoing funding through SFI and other schemes. That is the key point. We are speeding up that vital transition, which I fully recognise the previous Government set about initially, to get to a better place in terms of the environment.

The issue of capital grants is interesting, because I must tell the Opposition that there is no magic money tree. The reason why the capital grants have stopped is that they are oversubscribed. We have seen an unprecedented demand this autumn. The Rural Payments Agency received more applications for capital grants from May to November 2024 than over the whole of the 2023-24 financial year. They are also worth more—as of November ’24, the standalone capital grant applications were up by 45% compared with the whole of the last financial year. This is a basic problem that we inherited: there is no management of public funds. That is the core problem that the whole of Government faces with our inheritance from the Conservatives, and we will deal with those points.

I turn to the Dartmoor issues, which the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly raised. On 29 October, we appointed Phil Stocker to chair the new Dartmoor Land Use Management Group, which was one of the central recommendations of the Fursdon review. We are moving forward with David Fursdon’s recommendations to create a long-term plan for land use that preserves the cultural heritage of the area, recovers nature and boosts food production. The group will provide a space for stakeholders to discuss important issues and work to strike the right balance between food security and preserving the diversity and abundance of nature in the area. Mr Stocker will be responsible for steering the group to meet its aims and objectives, and one of his first tasks will be to identify and appoint members who bring the necessary knowledge, expertise and engagement to the group. That process is under way, and we expect the first meeting to take place shortly. I absolutely hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s invitation, and at an appropriate point I will, I hope, visit and constructively support the work being done.

I also understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman met officials from Natural England in October for an update on progress implementing the Fursdon review. We have been in discussions since I took up the role, and we wish the whole process well.

I will turn to the agricultural property relief issue—a well-rehearsed debate that will continue in the main Chamber tomorrow. I will repeat the points that I have made before. We are confident that the changes are proportionate and that smaller farms will be protected. Those above the threshold will have 10 years to pay the tax, with zero interest incurred. No one is doubting that it was a difficult decision, but the truth is that the economic situation that the Government inherited has required us to make tough choices. I reassure Members that based on the figures we have, which are the only ones we can go on—actual claims on estates—we reiterate our point: we feel that the vast majority of people will be not be affected.

[Robbie Moore]

On that point, will the Minister confirm whether, when the Government brought in the £1 million cap, they took into account the size of farming units in any analysis on its impact on future IHT claimants?

[Daniel Zeichner]

That will be debated further. On our side, the debate will be led by Treasury Ministers who are in a better position to answer those kinds of questions. However, the complexity and the different range of set-ups and structures that family businesses have makes it difficult to make that assessment. The hon. Gentleman will know that when it comes to legislation, there will be a full assessment and we can look into those details then. I stand by the figures that the Treasury has given us. We expect that the changes will affect only around 500 claims for agricultural property relief in 2026-27, so we believe it is a fair and balanced approach.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady will know that we are one Government and we stand together. Going forward, we are picking up the mess that we inherited, and that is the problem we face. On each of these issues in turn, we have to answer the basic question: who will fix the economic mess? The answer is this Government.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister indulge me one more time?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Just once more.

[Robbie Moore]

Only because I will not have the opportunity to raise this point at the Dispatch Box tomorrow if a Treasury Minister is responding. Will the Minister correct me if I am wrong? When the Government introduced the £1 million cap, they did not look at the size of family farms that will be impacted. Surely they do not understand the value of an estate on death if they have not looked at the size of it, therefore how can they understand correctly the number of claimants who will be impacted?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We can, because we simply look at the number of claims that have been made in the last few years. That is how we arrive at that conclusion.