Draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 General Committees

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

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

These regulations make necessary amendments to Northern Ireland’s legislation governing plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material and ensure that it operates in accordance with the Windsor framework. Maintaining strong plant health protections is essential to safeguarding Northern Irish growers, Northern Irish food security and the natural environment. An outbreak of a serious pest or disease could have devastating consequences for agricultural production and rural businesses across Northern Ireland.

Plant health legislation is included under article 5(4) of the Windsor framework. The amendments in these draft regulations ensure that DEFRA has the necessary powers to enforce the plant health rules applying in Northern Ireland. They update prohibited lists of plants and pests, phytosanitary controls that govern the movement of plants for planting and other objects and conditions in relation to planting material and requirements for reporting and disposing of infected material. The instrument also removes provisions relating to movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that are no longer applicable, introduces a GB-NI code for official labelling and makes several technical corrections.

These are important protections and the official Opposition will not be opposing the amendments laid today. It is right that DAERA possesses the powers that it needs to enforce the rules properly and to act where non-compliance is identified.

However, we do have some concerns. The Minister mentioned that no public consultation was undertaken on these amendments, but while DAERA and DEFRA engaged with key stakeholders, it is important to note that Northern Irish growers, seed potato producers and other affected businesses must also have a meaningful opportunity to make their views heard. Therefore, I would like to understand from the Minister if a level of engagement was had with those growers and organisations involved in that sector. Will the Minister identify which organisations, if any, DEFRA engaged with?

The Government have not produced a full impact assessment or established specific monitoring arrangements because the regulatory requirements already apply in Northern Ireland. They may already apply, but that does not necessarily mean that they impose no cost or administrative burden to businesses. Could the Minister assure us today that any unforeseen costs or practical difficulties will be identified and addressed, particularly if they could disrupt the movement of plant and seed potatoes between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

The official Opposition will not oppose these regulations. Strong and enforceable plant health protections are essential, and these amendments will provide DAERA with the powers it needs to protect Northern Ireland from dangerous pests and disease. However, regulations introduced under the Windsor framework must be accompanied by meaningful engagement, proper democratic scrutiny and close attention to their impact and practical consequences. While not opposing these amendments, we seek clarity from the Minister today around the assurances on consultation with stakeholders and the protection of trade within the United Kingdom.

Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank her for the considerable work that she has done to examine how aluminium is collected, recycled and ultimately reprocessed across the country.

We know that this is a significant issue. In 2024, 287,000 tonnes of aluminium waste was generated in the UK, of which only 54.7% was recycled. Across its different uses, the aluminium industry contributes an estimated £9.4 billion to the UK economy, supporting sectors all the way from packaging to car manufacturing, energy infrastructure and defence. Of course, the Government have rightly recognised aluminium as a critical material.

Aluminium, as has been referenced, is one of the most valuable materials in the household recycling stream, and it is therefore vital that councils have a clear understanding of what they are collecting, what the material is worth and what happens to it when it leaves their possession. If neighbouring local authorities are receiving dramatically different returns from comparable aluminium material, as has been rightly pointed out by the hon. Member and others, why is that the case? It would be very interesting to know whether DEFRA and the Minister are looking at the scale of those differences nationally, as such disparities have been raised throughout the debate.

This is also a matter of public confidence. Residents are repeatedly encouraged to recycle—and rightly so—but they believe that what they are doing is having a positive impact on the environment. Surely they are also entitled to know what happens in the recycling process itself. If a council cannot say confidently where the aluminium ultimately goes, how can residents do so? How can elected councillors scrutinise what taxpayers are receiving and whether it is value for money? I hope the Minister agrees that greater transparency is needed throughout the whole system, and I would like to understand what steps the Government are taking to ensure that councils have the information and expertise they need to properly scrutinise the process and ultimately make the right decisions.

That leads me on to the second major issue that has been raised in the debate, which is the sheer amount of valuable aluminium scrap that is leaving the United Kingdom. The figures are striking: the UK currently exports almost half the aluminium scrap that it produces, and at the same time, the UK spends around £5 billion importing aluminium. Make UK has warned that the rate of export risks affecting future industrial resilience, and estimates that the domestic aluminium scrap sector may need to grow by around 25% every year to meet the anticipated demand from British industry.

To be clear, the Conservatives strongly believe in free trade. Aluminium scrap is traded internationally, and it would be wrong to suggest that every ton of exported scrap represents a policy failure. However, the Government should not ignore the wider strategic consequences when increasingly large quantities of a material that they have designated as critical are leaving the country when demand from British industry is expected to rise. The Government have designated aluminium as critical because it is essential to defence, energy, car manufacturing and other key industries, so it is surely reasonable to ask whether we are retaining enough of our own secondary aluminium to meet our growing requirements.

We have British businesses investing in recycling infrastructure right here. British industries are demanding more aluminium, but councils are exporting large quantities of that material abroad. That cannot be right, so I ask the Minister what proportion of exported aluminium could be processed in this country. What assessment have the Government made of the implications of scrap aluminium exports for British industry and manufacturing, and what conversations is DEFRA having with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure our recycling policy and our industrial strategy are pulling in the same direction?

That brings me to the extended producer responsibility and packaging. There is huge concern that the sheer cost of Labour’s implementation of these measures is having a detrimental impact. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that EPR will raise around £1.6 billion a year on average over the first five years, but it also recognises DEFRA’s estimation, based on its own information, that EPR is not likely to have a material impact on recycling rates or packaging waste volumes over that period. If businesses are being charged that much, and the cost of those measures is ultimately being passed on to consumers through higher prices, Ministers must be able to show how they are ultimately improving recycling rates in this country. I therefore ask the Minister how much more recycling of aluminium EPR will actually deliver, and how much of that funding will result in better local authority recycling services and decision making. We cannot end up with a system where businesses, consumers and families pay more, but recycling rates ultimately do not move at all. It is vital for the success of EPR that these measures are open and transparent.

In aluminium, Britain has an extraordinarily valuable and useful material. It can be recycled time and time again and supports industries that are worth billions of pounds to our economy. The Government themselves have designated it as critical, yet we are still exporting almost half of the aluminium scrap we generate. Local authorities do not always know where the material they collect goes, or where it ultimately ends up. Some appear to be securing dramatically better returns for their aluminium than others, while at the same time, British recycling businesses are investing in capacity and British manufacturers are increasingly needing the very aluminium that those local authorities are allowing to leave this country. That should concern Ministers.

The previous Government implemented much of the framework that is in place; the challenge for the current Government is to ensure that that framework works effectively. If businesses are being asked to meet enormous costs through EPR, they must see better recycling rates as a result. If councils are collecting valuable material, taxpayers deserve to know where it goes and whether they are receiving proper value for it, and if aluminium is genuinely a critical resource, Government policy should reflect that reality. We need a system that recycles more; uses that recycled material at home, not necessarily abroad; gives councils better value for money; protects businesses and consumers alike from unnecessary costs; and strengthens British industry. Ministers now need to show that they are capable of meeting that challenge.

Support for Pig Farmers

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.

The British pig sector is in crisis, and our pig farmers need our help. My hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly spoke the challenges north of the border. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) rightly called on the Minister to ensure that no independent farmer is unable to have their pigs processed. That is absolutely the crux of the issue.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The British pig sector contributes about £14 billion to our economy—£2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales, and exports to 88 counties worth almost £500 million. It is a major part of our farming industry, and we cannot afford to let the current financial challenges go any further.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to outline the exports from the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we export almost 80% of our product, so it is even more critical for us.

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. There must be a UK-wide approach.

The warning signs have been there for months. Since last autumn, the sector has been hit by oversupply, stagnant demand, falling European prices, factory disruptions and rising costs all at once. At one point earlier this year, around 100,000 pigs were backed up on British farms. That backlog has largely cleared now, but not without cost. The standard pig price has fallen by around 30p a kilogram, from roughly 208p to 178p.

That is only part of the picture, because the vast majority of independent farmers will be receiving much less than that, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. No market can survive on those terms. Without urgent action, the sector faces being pushed towards collapse. It is our independent producers who are bearing the brunt of the pressures faced by the sector, with thousands now seeing their contracts terminated early by major processors. Somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 pigs a week are affected by notices being served on producers.

The Government simply cannot stand on the sidelines and hope that the market corrects itself, because by autumn, the industry fears that up to 10,000 to 15,000 pigs a week could have no market at all. If nothing changes, we know what follows—more farm closures, more herds reduced and more businesses walking away from the industry altogether.

The fair dealing obligations for pig contracts were brought in to fix the problem exposed by the last crisis—unequal bargaining power, poor contracts and a lack of fairness between producers and processors. We can all agree that those were worthwhile aims but if, during the implementation period, producers are still seeing contracts terminated early in record numbers and our farmers are still losing money on every pig they sell, the Government have to ask whether the regulations are doing what Parliament originally intended. Will the Minister commit today to an urgent assessment of whether the regulations are fit for purpose?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) noted, there are also longer-term challenges. The threat from African swine fever and foot and mouth disease is real and ongoing. Protecting our borders from illegal meat imports and strengthening our disease defences must be a priority. What are the Government doing to work across Departments, including with the Home Office, to make sure that these live issues are addressed?

The industry also needs a sensible workforce strategy. Like much of agriculture, pig farming is struggling with labour shortages. It needs a strategy that builds a workforce based on domestic skills and apprenticeships.

We must also address the issue of transparency. Customers want to buy British and retail labelling has come a long way, but food services still rely heavily on imported pork, often with far less clarity about where that pork comes from. British producers deserve a level playing field and British consumers deserve to know what is on their plate.

That is why the Conservative party has proposed closing the loophole that lets imported food, once merely processed or packaged in the UK, carry branding that many shoppers reasonably mistake as British. What progress has been made since the Government’s response on the food labelling consultation? Do the Government intend to strengthen country of origin rules?

British pig farmers are not asking the Government to solve every single commercial challenge, but they are asking for regulations that genuinely protect producers rather than leave them exposed. Above all, they are asking the Government to recognise the strategic importance of British food production before more independent producers simply disappear for good.

We cannot lose more of this vital industry. For the sake of our farmers, our rural communities and our country’s long-term food security, the Government must engage with key stakeholders. It is disappointing to hear that the last bilateral meeting between Ministers and the National Pig Association was back in September 2025. I call on the Minister to have an urgent meeting—I understand there may be one tomorrow. If that is the case, will the Minister guarantee that those meetings will continue at pace and at regular intervals with the British Pig Association, so that we can make sure that this vital industry is protected long into the future?

State of Climate and Nature

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

I am sure that no one in this House disputes the importance of protecting our climate or restoring nature; the real question is whether this Government are capable of delivering both. The Minister speaks about climate and nature as priorities, yet the Government have repeatedly chosen to target the very individuals tasked with delivering: our farmers, who are the frontline custodians of our natural world.

Let us have a look at the choices this Government have already made in the past two years, which are in direct contradiction to the ambitions the Minister has set out. First, part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 was rightly heavily criticised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which warned that the legislation would

“rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall.”

The Wildlife Trust directly challenged this Government’s growth-at-all-costs rhetoric, stating:

“Before the General Election Labour promised to restore nature”,

yet the Government are instead driving environmental regression. Both organisations took the extraordinary step of demanding that part 3 be completely removed, as did the Opposition.

Secondly, last September the Minister pushed through a blanket ban on the controlled burning of heather on deep peat. In doing so, the Government completely ignored the warnings of the National Fire Chiefs Council, the National Farmers’ Union and many environmental scientists who understood, quite rightly, that by blocking land managers from conducting traditional, heavily regulated rotational burnings, this Government are letting massive fuel loads build up across our moorland, effectively creating a tinderbox and vastly increasing the risk of devastating wildfires that destroy the very peatlands and biodiversity that this Government claim they want to protect.

Thirdly, the Government have completely undermined the sustainable farming incentive. With only £240 million allocated to this year’s applications, the Government have, in effect, made the whole scheme competitive entry. To make matters worse, by capping agreements at £100,000, they are actively pushing the most ambitious, large-scale nature restoration projects in the country out of the window. We cannot achieve a massive 30 by 30 target by cutting funding, reducing green options and telling farmers that large-scale conservation efforts are no longer welcome.

Fourthly, as a result of this Government’s choice to remove the onshore wind farm moratorium, we are now in the ridiculous scenario of applications coming forward to build large-scale wind farms on protected peatland, such as the proposal for the Calderdale wind farm in West Yorkshire, despite warnings from academics and groups like the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust that, if approved, these projects will release massive amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere. The list goes on.

Today’s statement offers no new protections, relying instead on a fragmented, reactive approach that tries to hit targets, rather than redefining how we count and reference land and actually doing anything positive about it. The choices that this Government have made in the past two years do not represent a road map to nature recovery. Before coming forward with today’s statement, what consideration did the Government make of the impacts of their choices over the past two years on the targets set out in this plan? Does the Minister agree that those policies are in direct contradiction with the delivery ambitions that this Government have brought to the House today?

[Mary Creagh]

I am disappointed by the nature and tone of the hon. Gentleman’s response to our attempts to right some of the wrongs left behind by the previous Government.

The hon. Gentleman asked in particular about the Planning and Infrastructure Act. What we have done through that Act is introduce strategic policy statements to prioritise outcomes over process, so that Natural England and the Environment Agency can speed up decision making while maintaining high environmental standards. We have given them £100 million over three years to fund specialist staff and modern digital systems to cut costly delays for planners.

It was clear when we came into government that the status quo for development and nature was simply not working. Fragmented site-by-site environmental requirements and increasing costs were adding to the delays to the much-needed housing and infrastructure that this country needs. It was not working for nature either, and the condition of many of our most important habitats and species was continuing to decline. The nature restoration fund will support development and ensure that the money spent by developers on environmental mitigation delivers more. It is a simple levy payment that Natural England will use to deliver impactful conservation measures at scale instead of having a piecemeal approach.

Let me talk a little about peat. Some 80% of England’s peatlands are degraded. We are investing £85 million in their restoration by 2030. Since we have come into government, approximately 10,000 hectares of peatlands have been brought into restoration through our nature for climate peatland grant scheme. Last week we announced £44 million for lowland peat—which I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s Government invested in—and we expect another 4,000 hectares to be restored this year. We have the target, which his Government set, to restore an additional 40,000 hectares by 2030.

Rotational burning is a contributory factor to 80% of peatlands being degraded. It makes it difficult to restore peat to its natural hydrology and impossible to return it to its natural state. It is also really bad for air quality locally. It damages peatlands, shifts species composition, disrupts the hydrology of peat and, crucially, releases stored carbon, increasing vulnerability to wildfire. Wetter, healthy and functioning peatlands are much more resilient to the impacts of wildfire.

We have published our farming road map, and through the new environmental land management schemes, we are supporting smaller farmers—those organic farmers that were excluded from the larger schemes that the hon. Gentleman talked about. We are spatially targeting, so that we get bigger, better and more joined-up protected areas for nature and wildlife.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Delinked payments dramatically reduced; SFI stopped and started and ultimately made competitive; targets to dramatically reduce livestock numbers recommended; the state given more power to buy farmland below market value; the fertiliser tax; the double cab pick-up tax; the introduction of family farm and family business tax; Natural England given more power; an EU realignment deal that is set to cost our farmers thousands and result in job losses; and the annual grant for young farmers removed for the first time—oh, but beavers have been released. Which one of those measures that the Secretary of State has introduced in the last two years does she think will support the long-term financial sustainability of our farming businesses?

[Emma Reynolds]

I would take our record over the hon. Gentleman’s record any time. The Conservatives could not even be bothered to spend the farming budget when they were in power. They sold farmers down the river on various trade deals, but we have not; we have protected farmers in our trade deals. We have set out the first-ever long-term road map and vision for the farming sector, and we have worked closely with it. We commissioned Minette Batters, the former president of the NFU, to do an independent profitability review, and we are taking forward the vast majority of her recommendations. We are working in close partnership with the sector. That is all in stark contrast with what happened under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

Draft Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The regulations represent an important step in enabling the deployment of small modular reactors in the United Kingdom. They are a necessary part of the regulatory framework and provide the legal basis for determining that the benefits of the technology outweigh the potential health detriments associated with ionising radiation. The technology has the potential to strengthen our energy security, support thousands of highly skilled jobs and grow our manufacturing base at a time when electricity demand is expected to rise significantly. It is vital that we have a diverse mix of energy, with nuclear playing a key role alongside other forms of energy generation.

The official Opposition welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to build the UK’s first small modular reactor; Rolls-Royce has world-leading expertise in nuclear engineering, a highly skilled workforce and a proven track record of delivering complex nuclear technologies. The prospect of British designed and British built SMRs generating clean reliable electricity is something that Members across the House should support. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined a clear timeframe for when the generic design assessment process is expected to conclude. When will financial decisions be taken and when will construction begin? Most importantly, when will the first electricity be generated?

Small modular reactors are a promising technology, but they are only one form of nuclear power; they must be combined with large-scale nuclear power stations as well. If the UK is serious about becoming a global leader in small modular reactors, we must move with greater urgency. We need certainty from manufacturers, confidence for supply chains, and opportunities for apprentices, engineers and communities that stand to benefit from these projects.

The official Opposition will not oppose these regulations, which represent sensible progress. But we urge the Government to match this important regulatory decision with the ambition, urgency and leadership that the UK’s nuclear future requires.

Air Pollution

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Uma Kumaran]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

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

[Uma Kumaran]

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

[Robbie Moore]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farming: Financial Sustainability

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

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

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

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

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

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

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

[Robbie Moore]

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

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

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

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

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

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

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely, Mr Turner.

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

Water Safety

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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