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.

Independent Water Commission

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I shall be responding on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State while she meets farmers at the Royal Welsh Show.

Let me begin by recognising the scale and seriousness of the work undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe and his team. The review contains 460 pages and 88 recommendations, and represents one of the most detailed examinations of the water sector since privatisation. Indeed, there is much in it that we cautiously welcome, including the merger of the regulators. As we examine the recommendations in more detail, we stand ready to support serious reform if it is done properly. However, I am afraid that what we have seen and heard from the Secretary of State over the past year has not matched the seriousness of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s work, nor has it gone anywhere near the root-and-branch radical reform that he sold to voters before the election. I therefore seek clarity from him on the following points.

First, over the weekend the Secretary of State announced that Labour would cut sewage spills by 50% by 2030, but what he did not mention was the fact that plans submitted under the last Conservative Government were already set to cut sewage spills by even more than that amount. The Times reported yesterday that the Secretary of State’s new pledge would actually see an additional 20,000 discharges of sewage in our rivers, compared with existing plans. Can the Secretary of State explain why, after 88 recommendations and a year-long review of the sector, he has watered down sewage reduction targets rather than massively ramping them up?

Secondly, the Secretary of State took to the airwaves at the weekend telling the public that we needed to go back to the “purity” of our waters that we all remember, but the uncomfortable truth for which Labour still refuses to take responsibility is that when it left office in 2010, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. Let me repeat that: under Blair and Brown, 93% of sewage discharges were happening with no oversight and no accountability whatsoever. The only reason we can talk tough today is the fact that the last Government pushed monitoring to 100% in 2023. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State to clarify his statement?

Thirdly, the Secretary of State told the public that he had secured £104 billion of investment from the water sector to fund these reductions, but what he did not mention was that £93 billion of that investment plan had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023, nine months before he was even in office. I would know that because I was the Minister at the time, and I have here the letter showing that he had nothing to do with it. Will he comment on that?

Fourthly, the Secretary of State champions the 81 criminal investigations of water companies that have taken place since the election and his ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, but what he does not explain is that these criminal investigations are a direct result of the Conservatives’ policy of quadrupling the number of water company inspections, and that it was our party that launched the ban on bosses’ bonuses. This is all available for the public to see and to fact-check for themselves, as it is a matter of public record.

What all this shows is that, for all their bluster and promises of radical change, the Government have made almost no new progress on the issue over the past year. They have sat on their hands for more than a year waiting for the review. It is no wonder that the campaigners whom the Secretary of State so shamelessly used for votes in the run-up to the last general election are now, today, calling for his resignation. We on this side of the House stand ready to work with the Government on serious reform. We will support any action that genuinely holds water companies to account, delivers cleaner waters and protects the public from paying the price of corporate failure. However, we will not stand by while the Secretary of State rewrites history, waters down ambition, and backtracks on the promises that he made to the public.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—I think—for his comments, but it is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State did not consider a matter of this urgency to be important enough for her to show up in the Chamber this afternoon. I am afraid that that really does reflect the importance that their party ascribed to this issue during the 14 years in which it was in power.

I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he sounded a little delusional this afternoon. If he really thinks that the Conservatives did so well on sewage, I wonder why he thinks sewage pollution in our waterways increased every single year during their 14 years in charge. The fact is that the Conservatives made the situation far worse, because they instructed the regulator to apply a light touch when they should have told it to get a grip. They stripped out resources from the regulator, reducing its resources by 50% at one point, so it was less able to enforce against sewage pollution. They allowed millions of pounds, if not billions, to be diverted away from investment and to be used instead for unjustified bonuses and dividends for water companies.

It is this Government who have secured £104 billion of investment to upgrade our water system. It is this Government who have banned the unfair bonuses that water bosses were taking. It is this Government who are introducing monitoring of all sewage outlets. And it is this Government who are going to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, where the previous Government failed abysmally.

Global Plastics Treaty

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I begin my remarks by acknowledging an interest in this area: my family own and operate a plastic recycling business, though I make it clear to the House that I am not directly involved in the management of the business, nor do I have any financial interest in it.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this really important debate. All Members have made hugely valuable contributions. The right hon. Member spoke about the importance of responsibility for not only stakeholders but wider industry and, indeed, policymakers. In the light of the upcoming negotiations on the global plastics treaty, it is an important time to have this debate.

Before coming to the potential treaty, it is worth taking a moment to consider some of the domestic context to our national relationship with plastic, and that brings me on to the other contributions. The hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) rightly raised concerns about microplastics, which have been mentioned by many Members in this House. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the challenges of plastic litter and plastic waste in his constituency, and he rightly called on the Government to hold China to account in their global discussions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly raised the importance that young people place on reducing plastic usage, and he mentioned the concerns and letters that have been submitted to him by various schools in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who is not in her place, raised the importance of banning single-use vapes and the work of local businesses and organisations in her constituency—including ABBA Voyage, which I have seen, and I noted its work to reduce plastic waste.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) focused on regulation and the importance of this place having an influence on the global plastics treaty. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) rightly raised her staunch objection to the incineration of plastic waste, and I agree with her. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, a planning application for an incinerator was approved by Labour-run Bradford council. I have been staunchly against that, and I wish her well in her local campaign.

The hon. Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) talked about research undertaken by Professor Christian Dunn at Bangor University, which I hope the Minister will look at. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and his neighbour, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), talked about the importance of progressing conversations on the global plastics treaty and the need for a greater focus on the concerns of their constituents, raised today by the strong voice of their Edinburgh representatives.

The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about the importance of reducing virgin plastic production and the need for a real focus on increasing recycling rates. Finally, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referenced the importance of local groups that drive forward change.

For decades, we have used plastic in ever more roles and in ever greater amounts. Indeed, plastics have replaced many everyday items that once were made from paper, glass or metal. Plastic may have been the way forward then, but that does not mean it need be the way forward now for everything. For that reason, I welcome the important steps that were taken by the previous Conservative Government. Plastic straws, drink stirrers and single-use plastic bags are all notorious for polluting our natural environment, and it was therefore right that efforts were taken to ban them.

In fact, the plastic bag charge has successfully seen plastic bag usage reduced by 98%. Other restrictions on single-use plastic cutlery, cups, trays, plates and many other items are now in force, with the ban having an important effect on reducing residual waste. Residual waste is key. We know that the UK produces a huge amount of plastic waste—as much as the second most per capita globally—but we also know that, due to strong environmental protections, very little of that waste is now handled irresponsibly. Of course, there is always more to be done.

For comparison, 80% of the plastics in the ocean originate from Asia, compared with just 0.4% from Europe. Reducing residual waste must be the key pillar of any international treaty on plastic waste. The previous Government understood that when they legislated in the Environment Act 2021 to halve residual waste, and I trust that the Minister will be able to reassure us that it remains the key goal of this Government.

[Bobby Dean]

The hon. Gentleman is talking well about the general state of plastic in the world, but we are debating the global plastics treaty. Can he confirm whether his party supports the UK being a signatory?

[Robbie Moore]

I will come on to those points, but I first wanted to outline the nature of the debate, because it is important to recognise the contributions that have been made.

We know that reducing our plastic use is vital for two key reasons. The first is the impact on the environment. It is estimated that as many as 1 million seabirds die each year as a result of entanglement in plastic. In fact, at current rates of increase, the weight of plastic in the oceans will outweigh all fish by 2050. Plastics also pollute our inland waterways, having a detrimental impact on nearby areas, especially when we consider the long-term chemical effects of decomposition.

The second reason is the growing body of research showing that long-term exposure to plastics is bad for our health—particularly microplastics, as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned. Everything from hair loss to fatigue, heart conditions and strokes have been linked to microplastics. What is most concerning is that, while the health links may not yet be fully understood, we know that microplastics persist for centuries, not only in the environment but in our bodies. As we use more plastic through our lives, these levels build, potentially increasing the risks.

That is precisely why securing an effective global framework to reduce plastic use is key. The resolutions passed in 2022 were an encouraging first step and show clearly that countries across the world recognise the challenge and wish to tackle it. Crucially, this global support for progress on plastics is key to ensuring that standards are raised uniformly and that the risk that plastic waste is simply offshored is significantly reduced. We simply must not offshore our responsibility.

Equally, we must be realistic about how we manage plastics. We must recognise that unilaterally banning or heavily restricting many types of plastic will leave us uncompetitive on the global stage. We must work with other nations and bring those that are sceptical along with us. That scepticism is precisely why we must use the negotiations on this treaty to take these matters forward, and to make them concrete.

We cannot simply have goals or aspirations. We must have verifiable targets that can be measured so that we can hold organisations and stakeholders to account. Naturally, we should then expect all signatories to fulfil those obligations. I hope the Government are able to confirm that they will push for the inclusion of these measures in the treaty as they continue to negotiate, to ensure compliance by ourselves and other partners.

We must continue to work not only on the global plastics treaty but to improve our plastic waste record at home. We must continue to invest in our sorting and volume capacity within the recycling sector to ensure that the amount of recycling continues to go up, and to reduce the amount going to landfill.

Plastic pollution is not going away. Many plastics will be with us for thousands of years, so it is vital that we act to stop the flow of waste into our environment. When discussions are reopened next month in Geneva, I hope that the Minister will be in attendance and that the Government will be successful in securing the robust and practical treaty that we all hope to see.

Draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that the draft regulations are a point of agreement between the Government and His Majesty’s official Opposition. Time and again, I have heard from farmers just how difficult their supply chain negotiations can be, and today’s regulations are an important step for the sheep sector in strengthening protections for producers and processors. We know just how much pressure sheep farmers are under, especially those in upland areas, and a lack of certainty about the price and classification that they can expect at the end of the process only makes it far harder to run their businesses.

With the supply chain being so important, I am pleased to say that last year the previous Conservative Government began the process that has culminated in the draft regulations, with the public consultation, which ran between January and March—and, of course, through the passing of the underlying Agriculture Act 2020. It is good to see that much of the learning from the consultation has been implemented in the regulations and that the new Administration have decided to continue with the proposed changes.

The draft regulations will provide not only much needed reassurance to our primary producers, but clarity for our larger abattoirs, setting clear standards for the presentation, measurement and record keeping of carcases. In particular, there is precise guidance on the proper presentation of carcases and a requirement to measure weight to the nearest 100 grams. Standard setting in relation to automated classification is also welcome and should help many abattoirs access such processes with confidence, thus improving their options for growth.

It is also good to see that, primarily, the draft regulations will impact larger facilities of more than 2,000 processed animals a year, protecting struggling smaller abattoirs from the burdens of increased regulation. Only a few weeks ago, we discussed in detail the challenges facing smaller abattoirs, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Government—or to hold them to account —on that issue, as much work remains to be done to ensure rigorous standards without overburdening smaller businesses. We will support the Government on the regulations.

Driven Grouse Shooting

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the more than 104,000 signatories to the petition.

Let me be absolutely clear with the many petitioners and other interested parties watching this debate: it is not my view that grouse shooting should be banned. I hope that over the course of my remarks it will become clear why that is my view and, indeed, the view of the Conservative party.

We must begin by recognising that grouse moorland is not a natural habitat. Just as the charm of the British countryside is managed by farmers, grouse moorland is managed by gamekeepers, farmers, estates and shooting syndicates that use it. If grouse shooting were banned, the moorland would not be as it is today. I worked as a rural practice surveyor before entering this place, and I advised and was involved in many moorland restoration projects—as well as spending many a Saturday when I was a young lad beating on grouse moors to earn a small wage—so I know the economic, social, environmental and ecological importance of grouse shooting to our uplands.

Banning grouse shooting would have significant ramifications. Across the UK, 1.8 million hectares of moorland are specifically used for grouse shooting, and they account for about 75% of the world’s supply of this remarkable habitat. Moorland is, in effect, unique to these islands, and we should be proud and protective of it. Red grouse, the species most commonly used in shooting, is also unique to these islands.

It is worth pausing to note that grouse shooting does not involve the specific rearing and release of birds. Grouse shoots use wild populations of birds that are carefully managed to create the numbers needed to prevent endangerment. The fact that grouse management straddles the line between true animal husbandry and wild hunting is precisely why the industry has such ecological and environmental benefits. The activity drives economic incentives to invest in the upkeep of grouse populations, manage their habitat for other species and provide significant environmental benefits.

Just as the careful management of heather benefits grouse, so it benefits other species, such as lapwing, curlew, golden plover and the rare merlin, as many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out. Such protected species rely on good, healthy heather for food and shelter, and without proper management, their numbers would decline.

Much of our moorland is also peatland, and grouse moor management schemes have restored approximately 27,000 hectares of bare peat in the past 20 years. Colleagues may know that I have been a big champion of peatland to store and sequester carbon, so efforts to restore it are very welcome. Peat in the UK stores 26 times as much carbon as UK forests, yet it regenerates naturally by only 1 mm a year in depth, making its protection and proper management vital to reducing carbon emissions. Through its management of grouse moors, grouse shooting can only contribute towards the success of that, including its economic benefits.

It is right that I pause here to discuss the burning of heather, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and other Members. The concerns of proponents of a ban on burning may be understandable, but they fail to consider the full picture and, dare I say it, are sometimes completely ill-informed. Their surface-level analysis ignores the fact that moorland is a managed landscape and must continue to be managed if we want it to remain in the enhanced habitat state that we see it in today.

[Olivia Blake]

Can the hon. Member remind me which Government brought in a partial ban on peatland burning?

[Robbie Moore]

Clearly, the reason why our moorlands are in the state they are in today is the collective management that is taking place, whether by mechanical means or through the moorland management burning plans that exist. If we were to end the burning of heather altogether, we would allow the woody stock to generate that has led to the very fires that were rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). Right now, gamekeepers are the people on the ground trying to cope with those fires and help our fire services out.

No burning would mean a build-up of vegetation and woody stock, which is itself a negative influence on the sustainability of heather for bird species of all kinds, but what is perhaps worse is that eventually, in the natural cycle, such overgrown heather is much more prone to catching fire. When it does, it will lead to huge and far more damaging wildfires, which are costly to communities and hugely damaging to the environment.

I have seen this for myself in my West Yorkshire constituency on Ilkley moor—another moor that is not managed, exactly the same as Fylingdales moor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. A series of smaller and cooler man-made fires, agreed and signed off via an approved moorland management burning plan, is vital for enhancing the ecological status of moorland, helps to improve the complex and desirable mosaic of the moorland, and significantly reduces the risk of dangerous unplanned fires. Once we understand that burning is the management of a natural process, and not destruction for destruction’s sake, it is far harder to justify banning it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he also concerned, as I am, about the proposed change in the definition of deep peat? Currently, it is defined as peat deeper than 40 cm, but there is a proposal to reduce that figure to 30 cm, which would mean that much of our moorlands cannot be managed through burning, leading to a much greater fire risk.

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I was just going to come to that. Natural England is engaged in that consultation right now. It is not just me who is concerned about the consultation process and the direction that Natural England is going in; the concern is shared by my hon. Friend and by Members across the House who have moorland in their constituencies where it is necessary to be able to burn in order to control the woody stock of heather, so that we can create a mosaic that benefits not just the peatland that sits below it but the many species that want to eat the new shoots of heather that come through. That would benefit not only red grouse but the many other bird species I have already spoken about. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Minister to look carefully at the steps that Natural England is taking, because its current direction is not sustainable for our rural economies.

The benefits of grouse shooting are not limited to environmental improvements. Grouse shooting and the management of our moorland provide an invaluable and highly successful land use for our upland areas that, crucially, relies on not just public money, but private investment. Directly within the industry, 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs are supported, contributing nearly £47 million to the UK economy. Those numbers may seem small compared with other industries, but the importance of grouse shooting is where that economic stimulus is felt.

Upland rural communities are some of the most remote and deprived in the country. It is a huge challenge to promote inward investment or deliver efficient and effective public services in those communities. Alongside activities like farming, grouse shooting provides a vital economic pillar to keep our communities alive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), like other Members, picked up on that very point. He rightly identified the complex social fabric in the hard-working communities up in Wensleydale, Hawes and beyond. Upland communities are some of the most remote. Banning grouse shooting would cause community centres such as pubs and hotels—like the Star near Thirsk, which I am familiar with—to shut, and those communities would be unable to rely on the positive benefits for employment, for families and for the viability of public services.

The benefits of grouse shooting extend well into our urban areas, as rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who talked about Holland & Holland. That demonstrates the wider economic impacts of grouse shooting. We know how important access to green spaces is, and the public obviously agree: 3 million people visit the North York moors, the Yorkshire dales and the Peak district annually. Why? Because they love the landscape.

The wider public health benefits of how grouse moors are managed are there for us all to see. Research shows that the perennial leaf coverage of heather helps to reduce air pollution, but that coverage is sustained only by the moorland being predominantly funded and managed for the purpose of grouse shooting. Managed grouse moorland also provides a defence against tick-borne diseases. The management of ticks is in the interest of our groundkeepers and of our farmers, as it protects their livestock, but another benefit is fewer ticks to spread human-borne diseases, some of which can be fatal. If we take away the economic incentives to carry out that work by banning grouse shooting, we lose those additional benefits.

I have covered many of the positive consequences of grouse shooting, but I would like to talk about the petition itself. Campaigners for banning grouse shooting have raised flooding as a concern, yet many of the organisations I have spoken to that advocate for shooting to continue say that the exact opposite is true. In the words that I have heard continuously, the wetter, the better. Indeed, many groundkeepers have spent the better part of the last few decades filling in and removing drains put in in the 1960s and 1970s, specifically to improve the outcomes for grouse shooting and to the benefit of flood mitigation downstream. I have seen that for myself on Keighley moor in my constituency. Without grouse shooting, those ditches and drains would still be in place today.

Another concern that has been raised, not just in this debate but in others that have preceded it, is predator control. We must strike a balance here. Many predatory species, such as foxes, are not endangered, yet many of their prey animals are. While grouse themselves are not endangered, other bird species that benefit from this predator control are. Where the control of predators has been relaxed, numbers of other bird species, such as the lapwing, golden plover and rare merlin, have dropped significantly. We must make a choice about what we wish to prioritise: an unendangered predator species or the endangered prey themselves. Taking no action is not a neutral action. It is heartening to hear that, thanks in part to moorland managed for grouse shooting, hen harrier numbers reached record levels in 2023, demonstrating the positive effect that moorland management can have on our bird of prey species.

We should also be absolutely clear that the harming of birds of prey is a crime, and I have yet to meet a grouse shooting organisation that believes that should change. Once again, the rising populations of our birds of prey demonstrate that grouse shooting works for our environment and not against it.

I am pleased that the Government’s written response to the petition was that there are no plans at present to ban grouse shooting, so I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that this remains the case and, further, that no Labour Government will ban grouse shooting. I would also be grateful if the Minister could say what he will do with his ministerial colleagues to hold Natural England to account, to make sure that it does not run away with the narrative of wanting to reduce the definition of deep peat from 40 cm to 30 cm, as that would have catastrophic consequences for how moorland is managed.

Grouse moorland management is a real success story of balancing economic, social and environmental activities. Those who wish to ban it because they feel that an unmanaged, natural approach would be better should be careful what they wish for. Without the financial incentive of the shoot, none of these environmental benefits for our moorland, our bird species or our climate would happen. I am certain that they would not happen without an agenda driven by private investment.

I thank all those in the sector who work enormously hard around the clock to enhance our moorland—our gamekeepers, our groundskeepers, our farmers, our rural estates, our land managers and our stakeholders such as the Moorland Association, BASC, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Countryside Alliance. I thank them for their continued work.

We all know that almost every acre of the UK is managed in one way or another, and has been for hundreds if not thousands of years. There is no Siberian tundra in the UK, no Australian outback, no Amazon rainforest or American wild west. We should not pretend that the land we love is the product of a random choice of nature, but instead we should recognise that it is a collective accomplishment of generation after generation of our ancestors and their stewardship of the land. Britain’s natural landscape is, ironically, a product of unnatural human management. Grouse moorland management might only be a part of that wider story, but it is an illustrative and successful one that I hope will continue long into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to cover for the shadow Secretary of State, who is speaking to farmers at the 140th Lincolnshire Agricultural Show. Having visited many such shows myself, including North Sheep 2025 and Cereals 2025 just last week, may I say how disappointed I am by the Secretary of State’s lack of attendance at these crucial farming events?

At a time when our farmers are going through some of the most extraordinary pressures in a generation, we have now learned that this Government have chosen to slash the farming budget. To make matters worse, Ministers have spent the past week trying to sell cuts of more than £100 million a year in real terms as a historic deal for farmers. If the Secretary of State has secured such a historic deal for his Department, where does DEFRA rank compared with others in terms of cuts in the spending review?

[Steve Reed]

First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I attended the Royal Cornwall Show with him just a few days ago. I am surprised he has forgotten that, because we sat together in the same tent and enjoyed a very pleasant lunch. I do not know what is wrong with his memory, but anyway.

The funding for ELM schemes paid to farmers will increase from £800 million in the last year of the Tory Government to £2 billion by 2028-29—that is a 150% increase under Labour compared with what the Tories were paying. No wonder the hon. Gentleman is so angry.

[Robbie Moore]

It is a shame that the Secretary of State did not do any media at the Royal Cornwall Show and pulled out of speaking events. I can tell him that DEFRA is ranked the third biggest loser of any Government Department in the spending review, and that is his failure. In reality, we are now looking at cuts to the farming budget of about 20% in real terms over the next three years, at a time when farmers need more support and certainty than ever. It gets worse: we now hear that the Government have issued further statutory guidance on farming rules for water, with more to follow, effectively aiming to ban—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have to try to get the other shadow Minister in. You went too low down the Order Paper—this is topical questions, not a full statement. I hope you are about to finish.

[Robbie Moore]

This is effectively going to ban the spraying of organic manures in the coming months. Is the Secretary of State categorically ruling that out?

[Steve Reed]

I am happy to send the shadow Minister the list of media coverage I got from the Royal Cornwall Show. He does not seem to be any better at googling than remembering who he sat down with at lunch. I am delighted that the spending review was welcomed by the environmental NGOs and the National Farmers Union as it funds activities that include the ones he referred to. It seems that everyone is delighted with the review apart from him.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing a really important debate. There is no better champion on this issue in Parliament. He is bringing together many all-party parliamentary groups to specifically tackle and bring to the Minister’s attention the important issue of flooding and is setting up his own flood caucus, not only among parliamentary colleagues, but prominently within the county of Norfolk—which is invaluable. My hon. Friend mentioned the 22 villages that have been flooded in his constituency, and all of us have referenced our own impacted communities, so I know just how important this issue is.

I want to address some of my remarks by echoing some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, because flooding devastates communities, families and the health and wellbeing of individuals who experience the trauma of flooding. It devastates our farmers and our economy at all levels and it represents a threat to life. What is worse, for some it is not a one-off event but a frequent occurrence. Far too many people are impacted. I am proud to say that the previous Government took robust action on flooding. Since 2010, more than 600,000 properties and 900,000 acres of farmland have been better protected by Government-backed schemes. In 2020, the Government announced a doubling of the flood defences budget, including £100 million for the frequently flooded allowance.

While those statistics represent vital progress, we must recognise, as has been indicated, that there is always much more to do. I will just canter through some of the points that have been made, because it is quite right that when dealing with water and with flooding, a catchment approach is always the focus. That deals with not only our farmers, but with our housing developers and our infrastructure providers. It starts right at the top, upstream, dealing with our moorland restoration projects and ensuring that our farmers have the funding to deal with environmental mitigation. That is why it is deeply frustrating that the Government have stopped sustainable farming incentive applications. While there is an acknowledgment that they have opened it up to an additional 303,000 applications on the back of our calls, it is nevertheless worrying to many of our farming community. That is exacerbated by issues such as the family farm tax, which is creating uncertainty in our agricultural sector.

The role of developers has been mentioned by all in this room and I agree that water companies need to be statutory consultees as part of that process. I also agree that planning considerations such as SuDS ponds and the design of houses—as has been illustrated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Julie Minns)—need to be taken into account when new developments are built. Financial contributions must be considered too, because far too often flood alleviation schemes are not established at speed to deal with the amount of development that is coming down the line. That impacts not only settlements further downstream, but agricultural businesses. Therefore, when looking at flood alleviation schemes, it is right that those schemes are attractive enough for a landowner to enter into such an arrangement, and therefore the remuneration that is associated with those flood alleviation schemes needs to be properly addressed.

The Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and land managers were also discussed. We very strongly advocate a loosening up of the relationship between the Environment Agency, our IDBs, who do a fantastic job recognised by many in this room, and the land managers—who sometimes just want to get on and clean the ditches, but are unfortunately penalised for doing so at the moment. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the advice from officials in the Environment Agency is “do not dredge” and “do not remove that vegetation from those EA-managed assets”. I would encourage the Minister to push back on that advice and say that dredging is an option further downstream and that removing vegetation from EA assets should be a consideration.

I also address the issue of insurance, because that is vitally important, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Flood Re is incredibly important if we are able to provide reassurance for those developments that have been built after the kick-in date. We would advocate the Government going stronger and faster with the recommendations that have been made in this debate.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Could I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up?

Small Abattoirs

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this incredibly important debate. As has been indicated in all the contributions, we realise that small abattoirs are a vital part of our food supply chain and, therefore, of our national food security.

The benefits of encouraging a diverse range of abattoirs of all sizes are incredibly important not only for food supply but for supporting the rural economy. Farming businesses rely on them. If they are not there, opportunities for our farmers, our rural economy and our consumers are significantly reduced.

Small abattoirs bring greater market competition, helping our farmers to secure the best price for their produce. They often provide specialist services, such as slaughter for horned cattle or outdoor pigs, which is not always offered by larger establishments, as we have heard. We do not always hear in this House about how the opportunities provided by small abattoirs are incredibly important for many in our farming community. Private kill services, which farmers looking to diversify increasingly rely on, are also a speciality of our smaller abattoirs.

With regard to animal welfare, smaller abattoirs are well suited to ensuring that each animal receives humane treatment. Reduced travel distances mean that animals arrive less stressed than they would after a longer journey. Those shorter travel distances also cut down on haulage costs and emissions in our meat sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) indicated in his intervention.

In rural communities across the country, small abattoirs ensure that more business is done locally by providing jobs and a local supply of produce for businesses further down the supply chain. However, we have unfortunately seen a decline in small and medium-sized abattoirs across the country, with areas such as northern Scotland, northern England and the south-east in particular experiencing a short supply of small abattoirs. A survey of farm businesses recently showed that 51% of respondents had to find new abattoirs after the closure of their original provider. Between 2018 and 2022, smaller red meat abattoirs declined by around 25% and smaller poultry abattoirs declined by around 40%.

A survey undertaken by National Craft Butchers indicated that 59% of abattoirs processing less than 1,000 livestock units a year would close within two to five years without any Government intervention. In 2023, that analysis was unfortunately on track. The previous Government decided to act on that by introducing the smaller abattoir fund. However, the costs to our smaller abattoirs have significantly increased. As has been mentioned, energy costs are often much higher for smaller abattoirs. The employer national insurance increase, the minimum wage increase and the challenges around skills are increasing those challenges.

The previous Government understood the problem and delivered the £4 million smaller abattoir fund, with 42% of eligible businesses applying. It delivered critical investment into the sector, making it more productive and improving produce quality and animal welfare standards. I urge the Government to continue rolling out that fund, which provided funds from £4,000 to up to £60,000. That was increased from an intervention rate of 40% to 50%, with the upper limit increasing to £75,000 to cover off some of the challenges.

Specific issues were picked up by colleagues in their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) mentioned the challenges in the south-east. I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) had specific challenges associated with their abattoir in Henfield. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs met the chief executive of Horsham district council and managed to secure a £300,000 grant to help keep the abattoir open. That illustrates the nature of the challenge. The changes to employer’s national insurance have been exacerbated by the additional costs associated with energy and running a small abattoir, so sometimes the Government need to intervene and assist.

We also need to get to a position of fairness throughout the whole of the supply chain, as was rightly suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). Farmers want fairness, not favours. We must get to a position where there is fairness in the supply chain. Government intervention sometimes helps the small abattoirs that provide a much better level of service to our rural economy, rather than farmers having to rely on larger abattoirs. Sometimes intervention helps, so I reiterate the calls on the Government to roll out the smaller abattoir fund again.

We also delivered the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export of live animals for slaughter. Not only did that end an often inhumane practice, but it provided further reassurance for the sector. The first thing that the Government could do is unequivocally recognise the importance of smaller abattoirs, primarily focusing on the supply chain. The Government should ensure that the supply chain—and abattoirs—are encompassed within their food strategy. Part of the review should include looking closely not only at a second round of the smaller abattoir fund, but at whether there are circumstances in which smaller abattoirs do not need the additional costs of energy.

What plans does the Minister have for regulatory reform in the abattoir sector? At a time when the Government are advocating for greater alignment with Europe, does he recognise that many of the EU directives still in force in this country did great damage to our smaller abattoirs? There is also growing concern about the financial burden placed on our smaller abattoirs by the Food Standards Agency, to which Members have referred. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that smaller abattoirs are not disproportionately affected by the rise in inspection costs? More broadly, what is he doing to ensure that the FSA delivers value for money?

The debate has rightly acknowledged the FSA’s rollout of increased charges. The uplift from March 2025, which impacts our smaller abattoirs, will have a direct impact in this financial year and the next. The Opposition agree with the National Farmers Union that the further pressure on the small and medium-sized abattoirs that are struggling with additional costs and regulatory burdens has been exacerbated by the implications of the FSA’s additional charging.

Furthermore, we want clarity from the Government about what they intend to do on the 5% rule, which would significantly reduce the regulatory burden for the smallest abattoirs. As we know, if such a rule was in place it would enable smaller abattoirs to slaughter up to 5% of the total national throughput without triggering a full veterinary presence and therefore without the additional costs associated with their going above 1,000 units and having veterinary officers present. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s intentions on the 5% rule?

The Government must also consider the benefits to small abattoirs of future food labelling reviews. Will the Minister tell us the Government’s intentions? Better consumer awareness through food labelling would help smaller abattoirs to sell their produce as more humane, more local and better placed for the consumer. I would appreciate it if he outlined the Government’s intentions in that regard.

To summarise, our rural economy has faced additional pressures not just through the family farm tax and the removal of the SFI but through the dramatic reduction in de-linked payments to £7,200. It is being further hit by the dramatic reduction in small abattoirs and consequently the reduced ability to slaughter produce at a local facility. I call on the Government not only to roll out additional incentives nationally through the smaller abattoir fund but to take on board the many contributions that have been made in the debate, so they can ensure that our farmers and our rural economy continue to thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On the 80th anniversary of VE Day, I thank those who fought for our and Europe’s freedom and, indeed, those who worked our land and kept our nation fed.

Our peatlands store 26 times more carbon than forests. They improve water quality and protect communities up and down the UK from flooding. The Nature Minister rightly called peatlands our “country’s Amazon rainforest” and launched a consultation to protect them. She is right, because once they have been destroyed, they can never be replaced. At the very same time, the Energy Secretary plans to rip up 2,000 hectares of protected peatland on historic land in West Yorkshire for a vast wind farm development, opening up communities to flooding and destroying the peatlands that Labour says it wants to protect. How can the Government claim to be protecting our irreplaceable peatlands when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is actively considering destroying one of our most environmentally important landscapes in the country?

[Emma Hardy]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s ability to weave a question for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero into a question on flooding. He will have heard from the Nature Minister how important peatlands are and how essential they are for this country and heard our commitment to protecting them.