Oral Answers to Questions
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The Minister’s response to my hon. Friend’s question highlights his arrogance on this issue. He constantly keeps saying that we need to look at the detail, yet his Department and the Treasury disagree on how many farms will be impacted by as much as 40%. In fact, as he knows, the figures being repeatedly regurgitated by the Government consider only past claims for agricultural property relief, not those combined with business property relief, which is just as important. Why? Because the Treasury does not have the data. We need comprehensive detail on this policy to properly understand the impacts of his family farm tax. I ask this for a third time in this House: will he release a full impact assessment—yes or no?
Rural Affairs
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Rural communities are proud communities, and our farmers work tirelessly around the clock not only to put high-quality food on our plates but, through their businesses, to help to keep our rural economy going—as, indeed, do many other rural businesses, as Members on both sides of the House have recognised.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) on delivering their maiden speeches. I know Stirling and Strathallan very well, having been born in Stirling—I am a proper Unionist—which gave me my red hair. Each spoke proudly on behalf of their constituents, and I welcome them to this place.
We are just a few months into this Labour Government and, following a string of broken promises and damaging cuts, trust among our farming community is now at an all-time low. Why are this new Government, across every single Department, deciding to sideline the voice of our rural communities?
We have heard that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is ploughing ahead with his plans to replace productive agricultural land with solar panels, and to replace protected moorlands with wind turbines—all against the consent of local people. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is taking away from local people the power to decide how they would like to see their rural communities expand, while providing no commitment whatsoever to improve services and infrastructure alongside any increased demand. The Secretary of State for Transport is scrapping the £2 bus cap, which the previous Government introduced as a vital part of the rural transport plan. Labour’s change leaves many people in remote rural communities paying even more to get to work or to visit friends and loved ones.
The Chancellor is stifling rural growth by hiking national insurance for small business owners, who are the backbone of our rural community, alongside her disastrous changes to inheritance tax relief through the ill-thought-through cap on agricultural property relief and business property relief, which will affect not only multigenerational family farms but trading businesses with assets valued well over the Government’s ridiculous £1 million cap. The Chancellor is also taxing double-cab pick-up trucks, as well as increasing the fertiliser tax, which is expected to increase costs by up to £50 a tonne.
Then, of course, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has willingly sold off his own budget to the Chancellor and broken every pre-election promise that he and his Government made to farmers, and then had the cheek to tell them to do more with less. That is all while he is dramatically reducing the delinked payment rates, which take effect next year, despite many farming businesses already having factored the income into their cash-flow forecasts. It is quite simple: this Labour Government do not understand rural communities and, what is worse, do not even appear to want to listen to them.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and David Walston from Thriplow in South Cambridgeshire that the impact of house prices and infrastructure means there is a complete disconnect between land value and income, which is affecting—
Robbie Moore
I know David well, as a fellow Nuffield farming scholar, and I agree with him on this Budget’s catastrophic consequences.
I am not sure how many farmers the Secretary of State spoke to in Croydon over the weekend, but I can tell him that the many farmers I spoke to are up in arms. Just last week I was at the northern farming conference in Hexham where, perhaps unsurprisingly, a huge number of complaints were raised by the farmers in attendance, with some even protesting at the gates. Ian Brown, a constituent of the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), said that this Budget will have catastrophic consequences for the farming community, yet all we heard from the Minister during that conference was a defence of the new Government, and not a single word about how they may have got it wrong. I understand that when he addressed the egg and poultry conference this morning, the Secretary of State concluded that farmers are exaggerating the consequences of the Budget. It is just staggering.
I am sure that many of the new Labour MPs, representing some of our fantastic rural constituencies, have received huge amounts of correspondence from farmers outlining their disgust at Labour’s Budget, but we heard very little from them in voicing their concerns. I am not sure whether the Whips are silencing them from raising their concerns, or whether they are completely tone deaf to the Budget’s direct impact on many of their constituents. If they would like some help, maybe I could outline some of the things they should be raising in this debate, such as increases in taxes on machinery, fertiliser, building materials, farm diversification and employees, and, worst of all, the crippling family farm tax, which risks forcing thousands of hard-working farmers to surrender their life’s work to the Chancellor.
Labour Members do not understand that the vast majority of family farmers are not multimillionaires; most are cash poor and operate under tiny margins, with many struggling to break even. To sustain their businesses, they generally operate from an asset base that has a high value. That is why the APR and BPR caps that have been imposed are so out of touch with the reality on the ground, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly outlined. When the value of the farmland, the farmhouse and perhaps a cottage or two is taken into account, and then the value of any livestock, growing crops, machinery, stocks or crops in store is added, along with the value of any farm diversification project that may have taken place, the value of any asset is likely to be well in excess of the £1 million cap, so the tax will impact the vast majority of farming businesses.
The Minister will say, “Look at the detail”, but I assure him we have looked at the detail, as have the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, and many professionals, be they accountants, solicitors or land agents working in the sector, as well as many of the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. We have all come to the same conclusion: Labour’s positioning is wrong, will have catastrophic consequences and must change. I again ask the Minister to provide clarity on the information he is relying on to make these decisions.
The smokescreen of a £3 million cap is incompatible with many farming businesses. It will not provide many farming businesses or family farming set-ups with the reassurance the Chancellor claims to be giving them. The same can be said about the justification of the 10-year payment for any IHT debt. That debt would result in assets having to be disposed of, because businesses will simply not have the funds to pay, nor will the banks be willing to lend against any IHT tax, should it be imposed, because many farmers will not be able to service such a loan. Will the Government publish a full impact assessment of the consequences their Budget will have on many farming businesses, food security and the larger rural sector?
We should never forget that this debate is about people. Hard-working farmers are at the heart of the debate. Some of their lives will be changed for ever. Farming can be a very lonely business, with long hours and the constant stress of battling against the odds. Our farmers are under extreme pressure, but unfortunately this Budget has done nothing to provide them with any reassurance, support or certainty that the Government are on their side. It is no surprise that charities are raising concerns about the shocking rise in mental health issues among our farming communities following the announcements in the Government’s Budget. I pay tribute to those farming charities and organisation that help to provide much-needed support, not only to our farmers but to all those involved in our remote rural communities.
To sum up, sometimes in politics it is hard to admit to being wrong, but after speaking to farmers, agricultural businesses and farming organisations up and down the UK, it is clear that the Government have got this wrong and are completely off the mark. I suspect even the Ministers on the Treasury Bench know that they have got this wrong, but they have chosen to double down. For the sake of our farmers and our rural communities—in fact, everyone who has been impacted by the Budget—I say to the Government that change was one of Labour’s key promises in the election and, right now, nothing would be more welcome.
Draft Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we have heard, the regulations exercise powers conferred under the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024. The Act was a significant achievement of the previous Conservative Government, prohibiting the export for slaughter of certain livestock from Great Britain, and it received royal assent shortly before the general election. We should not forget that it was because the UK had left the European Union that we had the freedom to implement such a ban.
The Conservative party manifesto at the 2019 general election included the commitment to control the live export of livestock, and I am pleased that the Government are helping to deliver on that commitment. The regulations establish enforcement powers, offences and penalties relating to the prohibition on the export of relevant livestock for slaughter, including fattening for subsequent slaughter.
It is appropriate that the issue is being dealt with on a UK-wide basis to ensure that the regulations are introduced simultaneously across England, Scotland and Wales. As a farmer’s son, I am well aware that livestock transport journeys can start in and go through the different nations of the UK. If the devolved nations had created their own regulations, there would have been a divergence, creating complexity, inconsistencies and administrative burdens on the industry and on enforcement agencies.
I am happy to confirm that the Conservative party will provide its continued support for the Act and the regulations. I conclude by paying tribute to officials in the Department and to organisations outside the House that have worked hard to get the regulations before us today.
Future of Fishing
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) for securing this really important debate. As an island nation, fish are one of the most valuable resources our country possesses. I echo the comments made by hon. Members throughout this debate in championing our fishermen and our wider fishing sector.
Towns and communities across the coast were built on fishing. Just as the previous Government committed to levelling up across the country, the Opposition remain committed to supporting our coastal communities and the fishing industries they are based on. A major part of this commitment was the announcement in December 2021, when the last Conservative Government allocated £100 million to specifically support the long-term future of our UK fishing sector, supporting job creation and boosting seafood exports to new markets. The last Conservative Administration also began the process of replacing the EU’s common fisheries policy with a new, bespoke framework for UK fisheries. Six fisheries management plans have already been consulted on, covering major species including bass, scallops, lobster and crabs. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what progress he has made in continuing these efforts and delivering the remaining management plans.
Given the importance of the fishing sector, it was deeply concerning that there was no mention of fishing in the Labour manifesto. I am sure that this was deeply worrying to the industry at large. We are unaware of the Labour Government’s plans, as we get closer to 2026. The Government must get its ambitions and plan in line now as we move towards the 2026 conclusion of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, and we must re-enter negotiations with the EU to provide certainty for the wider sector.
As a report outlined earlier in 2023,
“Since 2021 the UK has completed 3 sets of annual fisheries negotiations as an independent coastal State, including bilaterally with the EU, trilaterally with the EU and Norway, and with coastal States in the North-East Atlantic, and beyond. The conclusion of the latest negotiations means the UK fishing industry will benefit from 665,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities in 2023 worth over £750 million. As a result of quota share uplifts agreed in the TCA, the UK has around 115,000 tonnes more quota in the 2023 negotiations than it would have received with its previous share as an EU Member State.”
The year 2026 is incredibly important. Given that the TCA requires a level of interaction from the Government, will the Minister outline what conversations he and his Department are having? Will he confirm that the Government will not use UK fisheries as a bargaining chip to secure a more favourable energy relationship with the EU, as many Members have mentioned?
It is important to support the entire fishing supply chain. The UK’s coastal waters are an incredible natural resource, but the whole sector must be sufficiently supported to properly exploit them. Domestic fish processing and sales are just as important as our fishing fleet in ensuring we have a robust fishing industry that can strengthen our national food security. I am deeply concerned that the introduction of a raft of new labour and employment reforms may threaten all food processing, including our fishing industry, by making it harder and more expensive for our businesses to carry out their activities.
Melanie Onn
It is not a Labour issue that has caused consternation in the fishing sector; it is the implementation of the previous Government’s proposals and plans, which seriously affected distant-water fishermen. We have been left with just one distant water ship operating in the UK, and its catch dropped to less than 6,500 tonnes—a reduction of 70%—under the leadership of the hon. Gentleman’s Government. That gap is being filled by fish from Norway, Iceland and Russia. Does he think that we need improved negotiations with our neighbours, such as Norway, to restore jobs and fish in this country?
Robbie Moore
Right now, the current Government have a real opportunity to reset the situation as they go into the negotiations with the European Union. Before 2026, there is an opportunity to provide much more certainty to the fishing fleet. As Opposition Members have said, when going into negotiations it is important to set the bar incredibly high, so that we get the landing pitch right and ensure we get the best result for our UK fishing industry. If that means setting the bar so high that we are unwilling to enter into a deal that is set too early, so be it. At the end of the day, we have to get the right result for the UK fishing industry, because it will be under threat if we do not.
On the concerns I raised about employment law, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline any economic analysis that was undertaken for the Employment Rights Bill, specifically on the fishing sector. I am deeply concerned that the introduction of a raft of new labour reforms will threaten that sector. They will not only hike up employers’ national insurance rates and lower the threshold, but will hike up the minimum wage and introduce day one rights that pile on risk for employers. Concern has been raised with me and other Members that that will put pressure on the fishing industry. That is why it is so important that we get the discussions right at this time.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I come from Fleetwood, and our fishing industry was decimated after the cod wars. My husband works in fish processing in my area, and let me tell the hon. Gentleman that Brexit, which was introduced under his party’s leadership, destroyed fish exports from Fleetwood. Every Monday, a van used to come from Peterhead and stop at Fleetwood; we used to fill it up with fish, and it went out to France. That has never happened since we left the European Union. The legislation that the Labour party is bringing in will secure jobs on Fleetwood dock and look after the men who work there. Fish processing is very hard work. It is very cold, and it is a skill—
Robbie Moore
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but have to politely disagree, given the concerns that have been raised by businesses and wider industry about the impact that the Employment Rights Bill will have on employers—not only those that want to recruit temporary staff, but those that are directly involved throughout the whole supply chain. Having a farming background, I am well aware how difficult it is for anyone producing food in any primary industry, not least the fishing industry or the farming sector. Can we see the Government’s analysis of the economic impact of the Bill on the food processing sector, and can the Minister tell us his view on the impact it will have on the primary sector? I fear that it is far worse than the Government are saying.
We all want to see fairer access and a fairer deal for our fishermen. Time is of the essence as we move towards 2026. I hope that the Government will aim high in their aspirations to achieve a better deal for our fishermen.
Budget: Implications for Farming Communities
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Mr Speaker,
“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back.”
Those are not my words, but the words of our Prime Minister at the National Farmers Union conference just last year. Over the weekend, we have heard gut-wrenching stories from farmers up and down the nation who feel completely and utterly betrayed by the measures in this Budget. I ask the Minister: why does the Secretary of State continue to say that he is proud of his family farm tax? Does the Minister realise that the vast majority of farming families are not multimillionaires? Most are cash poor and many are struggling to break even. How does the Secretary of State expect farmers, in his words, to do—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) that I do not need any chuntering? Do we understand?
Robbie Moore
How does the Secretary of State expect farmers to do more with less? Why is he happy to hand our next generation of farmers an impossible tax bill?
Next, the Government claim that small family farmers will be protected, yet the Country Land and Business Association and the NFU have today disputed the Government’s figures. Will the Minister commit to releasing a full assessment of his policy, including an impact on national food security?
While the changes to inheritance tax relief have been gaining the national headlines, there are many other negative impacts on farming businesses from the Budget. Increased national insurance contributions, coupled with a lower national threshold; an accelerated reduction in de-linked payment rates; higher taxes on double-cab pick-up vehicles; new taxes on fertilisers—I could go on, but this all begs the question: does the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) actually know anything about farming at all? More importantly, after the Secretary of State looked British farmers in the eye and specifically promised them that there would be no changes to agricultural property relief, how on earth can farmers believe a single word that his Minister is about to say?
Daniel Zeichner
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Secretary of State—I hope he has similar success in the coming hours.
The hon. Gentleman raises a whole series of questions. He asked again, as others have, about other elements in the Budget. The figures are absolutely there; they were published by the Treasury and are there for all to read. They are the facts on the estates that have made claims on agricultural property relief in the last year available. [Interruption.] They are there for everyone to see. It is not difficult, it is not complicated—they are there.
Something that perhaps has not been said, but which should be, is that there were many calls to reflect the changing way in which farming operates by including environmental land management schemes within the scope of agricultural property relief. I hear nothing from Opposition Front Benchers about that. Do they not understand the way in which British farming is changing?
Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this important debate.
As has been acknowledged by all hon. Members, the UK’s waterways are the country’s lifeblood. When they are in a good condition, it is beneficial not only for the environment, but for public health. It is also crucial for biodiversity and local communities that rely on the waterways—not only for recreational purposes, but for tourism.
The last Government were determined to take a positive stance on improving water quality. To do that, however, we needed to understand the situation that water companies were in. That is why we specifically focused on increasing the monitoring of outfalls from the start, taking a monitoring rate for storm overflows from 7% in 2010 under the last Labour Administration to 100% at the end of 2023. In March 2024, we fast-tracked £180 million of investment that had to be allocated within the last financial year by water companies, with an expected reduction of 8,000 sewage spills in English waterways. We also linked shareholder dividends to environmental performance, quadrupled water company inspections and launched a whistleblowing portal for water company workers to report breaches.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister not feel embarrassed that it was his Government who beggared the Environment Agency and weakened regulators to the point where we had sewage flowing into rivers such as the Tyne and the Coquet in Northumberland? Does he not feel a little bit of guilt about trumpeting his Government’s apparently positive record?
Robbie Moore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for joining the debate; I see that he came in right at the last minute just to make that contribution.
My answer is no. When we were in Government, we absolutely wanted to embolden the regulators with as much power as they required, which is why we specifically linked dividends to environmental performance so that Ofwat had more power to hold water companies to account. Not only that: we increased the amount of funding allocated to the Environment Agency and empowered the whistleblowing portal so that employees within water companies, or indeed within the EA or any of the other regulators, could make their concerns known. In that way, we as the Government—and now the incoming Government—could make proper progress and ensure that proper, positive change was implemented to improve water quality.
The financial stability of the water companies is, of course, a serious issue, and that affects our constituents through not only potential price increases, but performance-related issues. Sensibly, Ofwat expects water companies to maintain a level of financial headroom to manage short-term volatility and shocks to their financial structures, and to meet their obligations and commitments, which are set both by Government and internally by the regulator. Above all else, however, consumers must be protected so I welcome the fact that Ofwat strengthened its powers to improve financial resilience. That includes stopping water companies from paying dividends when financial resilience is also at risk.
The new Government have said that cleaning up England’s rivers, lakes and seas is a priority and to achieve that the Water (Special Measures) Bill has been introduced through the House of Lords into Parliament. Perhaps I should not have been so surprised that that is effectively a reworked version of the policies introduced under the last Government. In the Bill, the Government pledge to introduce new powers to block bonuses for executives of water companies that pollute our waterways —something announced by the last Conservative Government. However, the powers are not quite the promises constantly regurgitated by the Labour party when they were out on the doorstep— they were telling many of their voters that water company bosses would end up “in the dock” if their water company had been falling foul of environmental permitting obligations. The Water (Special Measures) Bill simply does not achieve that. By introducing the Bill, the new Government have frustrated not only campaigners but investors who want to invest in the sector.
Opposition Members spent many a day out on the doorstep also promising that they would take swift and bold action, but as we have seen from today’s announcement of a new commission, a new review and a new taskforce, the Government are just throwing the hard decisions into the long grass and simply kicking the can down the road.
Mr Charters
Does the hon. Member not welcome the Government’s appointment of former deputy governor of the Bank of England Jon Cunliffe? He had that expertise as deputy governor in financial stability. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we need to look again at the whole system when it comes to the financial instability of water companies that he and his colleagues left behind?
Robbie Moore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely welcome anything that will improve the water sector. When I was a Minister in the Department, many issues needed to be addressed. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman commented in his speech that the Minister was working at pace, but the review will take at least a year to implement. I want to ask the Minister, as I did the Secretary of State in the House earlier: when will the positive recommendations from the review be implemented? We know that we are entering price review 2024, which exists from 2025 to 2030, but when is the industry likely to see any positive implications of the results of the commission that has been instigated today?
The Government have also confirmed that they will work with farmers to reduce agricultural pollution. I understand that Ministers have said that that will be through a series of
“proportionate and effective regulations, advice and incentives to deliver improvements”.
Can the Minister clarify how that will roll out? What new regulations does the Department anticipate bringing in? The farming budget is rumoured to be slashed by at least £100 million, so how will the Government incentivise farmers through public money to do the right thing in reducing run-off from fields and from their agricultural activities?
Will the Minister also outline whether any regulatory easement will be applied to water companies going forward? Many Members have raised concerns to do with Thames Water and the like, but I would like to specifically understand whether the Minister, her colleagues or the Secretary of State are looking at implementing a regulatory easement, as the Opposition would not want to see lower standards, the relaxation of environmental permits or a reduction in agreed levels of investment by any water company, irrespective of their financial circumstances.
Sound management of water companies is vital if customers are to receive the high level of service that they expect, and better environmental performance must be driven forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate. I will make sure he has time to sum up at the end.
In response to the shadow Minister, I think the Government’s record speaks for itself. Although he might wish to rewrite history, he cannot actually change history. If people want to see what his Government achieved, they just need to look at a storm overflow pipe or perhaps the level of pollution in every river, lake and sea. The public outrage and outcry over this issue is felt by everybody. It is certainly felt by this Government.
The level of pollution in our iconic lakes such as Windermere and in our beautiful chalk streams—we have had debates on this before—is outrageous. It is right that that has become more of an issue as time has gone on. That is a positive thing. We need to value our nature to a far higher level than we ever did before, and change is needed. Indeed, we were elected on a mandate to bring about that change. I am pleased that climate change was mentioned in the debate as well. Our problems will only increase because of our changing climate. Everywhere will perhaps not be quite as wet as the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but places will certainly be getting to those kinds of levels.
I pay tribute to all the campaign groups and organisations that have come to meet me since I became the Minister with this responsibility. Those people are incredibly passionate and dedicated, often citizen scientists giving their spare time to work on this issue, because they passionately believe in it.
I must mention the wonderful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), the quietly spoken radical. I welcome his support for the Water (Special Measures) Bill. Never let his quiet ways lead to underestimating the secret radicalness within him. I hope that he will contribute to the water review and the consultation. We will welcome his expertise.
I pay tribute to a fantastic new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who is a brilliant local champion. I value his contribution and I share his outrage at the levels of sewage he has seen in his constituency. I agree with the very good point he made: when we look at the consultation, we should look at other regulatory systems to see what works well and at what lessons can be learned, so that we create a system that is effective for the future. I hope that that is something that he, too, feeds into the consultation.
The Water (Special Measures) Bill has been mentioned a number of times. Before it comes to this House, I will organise drop-in sessions for Members of Parliament, who are welcome to talk to me about possible amendments and things that they would like to see in the Bill. I am happy to discuss that. I will of course make time for all the Front-Bench spokespeople to talk to me about it, too.
I have to say, however, that I was rather surprised to hear criticism by Members of Parliament of the idea of inclusion, of consultation with our commission. This Government believe in doing things with people and not to people. I will go so far as to say that the Government are not arrogant enough to believe themselves to have all the answers and expertise, especially with so many experts out there. The Government want to reset our water industry for decades to come and—this is in my DNA and is stated on the back of my Labour party membership card—we believe
“that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone”.
This is my philosophy of working with other people—looking at systems of co-production, at how we can create consensus, and at bringing together different ideas and expertise. I was therefore a bit surprised to hear that the idea of consultation and including others should be ignored. In fact, the previous Government had many examples of being arrogant enough to presume that they knew all the answers. Indeed, that Government created systems and policies that have been found to be utterly failing, because they did not listen to what the general public or campaigners were saying.
There is little point to different Members of Parliament talking about how they value the contribution of campaigners and organisations—how welcome those are and how well they have worked with them—when they also say that the ideas and expertise of those campaigners and other people should not contribute to Government policy. Deeds, not words—if we value people’s expertise and contribution, we must let them work with us to shape legislation for the future.
This commission will work with those experts, will value their contributions and listen to them, and will shape something that is fit for the future. It will conclude in June and, after a couple of months of looking at the consultation and Government response, further legislation will be brought forward. Some things will need primary legislation to change, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), understands, but some things can be done more quickly. That very much depends on the recommendations. If primary legislation is required, obviously such things will take longer.
An important point to make is that the Government want to do things in a different and inclusive way. I reach out to each and every one of the people in this Chamber to say: “We want to do this with you.” Yes, there will be different points of view across the Chamber and there will be different ideas about what the right answer is, but let us act collectively on this, not just as Members of Parliament across the House, but as campaigners, organisations and members of all groups, even my mum’s wild swimming group—I am sure they have many an opinion on what the right policy should be. Let us come together to create something meaningful that will command cross-party support and make a difference. That is what we want from this consultation. I will be honest: I am a bit disappointed that people think consulting and working with others is a bad idea.
While I am having a slight moan about things that are slightly disappointing, there seems to be a confused message coming from the Chamber. Members have highlighted that some of the drought plans for water companies are rather, shall we say, extreme, as they involve shipping water over from other countries to deal with droughts, but they also criticised building reservoirs. They cannot do both. If we are going to plan for droughts, we need to talk about building reservoirs and ensure we have the infrastructure we need for the future.
What have the Government been doing? In week one, we got all the CEOs together in a room and talked to them about how we fix the industry. From that meeting, we secured a change to the articles of association, ringfenced funding for vital infrastructure, and new customer panels, and strengthened the protection and compensation for householders. In the week after the summer recess, we introduced the Water (Special Measures) Bill, so in our first 100 days we have hardly been resting on our laurels.
A lot has been said about the independent commission. It is really important that it is independent, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer paid tribute to Sir Jon Cunliffe, whose expertise and financial record are second to none, so is somebody we can work with collectively to produce something really effective.
Robbie Moore
On the commission, would the Minister be kind enough to outline to the House the timings? The PR24 process, which Ofwat is looking at, comes into effect next year and will be in place until 2029-30. Will any positive recommendations from the commission take effect within that price review period?
Emma Hardy
The shadow Minister is pointing out the way we plan and look at our five-year cycle. Whether that is the best way of doing things is a whole other question. The answer is the one I gave earlier: it very much depends on whether things need primary legislation. Some things that change the regulator will not affect the price review framework. The price review framework is based on the amount of money that people will invest in infrastructure, and changes needed for the next five years. That does not mean that things relating to regulation and the rules cannot be changed. I am sure he understands that.
I reiterate the Government’s commitment to driving meaningful, long-term improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry. We want to deliver on our ambition to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and the actions I have outlined today are only the beginning. I am passionate about this issue, and am very pleased to be leading on it. In fact, I asked to become the Minister for it, and we do not always get what we ask for in politics. I reiterate my invitation to work with each and every Member here. I think consultation and collaboration are good things, and I hope all hon. Members will embrace that. I look forward to working with them to achieve the goal that we all share: cleaner rivers, lakes and seas.
Independent Water Commission
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement.
Fourteen years in opposition—and this is what the Labour party has to offer. Labour Members have had more than a decade to craft a clear package of policies, listen to campaigners and prepare to govern, yet what they have brought to the House today illustrates no sign of any ambition. This is a sign of hesitation. It is a way to delay the difficult decisions and buy themselves more time. It is part of a growing trend that unfortunately we are seeing consistently from this new Labour Government, across all Departments: announce a review, a taskforce and yet another commission, and hope the public do not notice that really they never had much of a plan at all.
That approach is simply not going to wash with the bill payers. Before the election, the Secretary of State toured the country with campaigners like Feargal Sharkey, promising radical change to the sector. He is now in power, and what has he actually achieved so far? He spent the entire election campaign telling voters that he wanted to put water company bosses in the dock, but we can see from the Government’s announcements on the Water (Special Measures) Bill that it will achieve no such thing, as campaigners and industry experts have already pointed out. Nor will the Bill provide any reassurance whatever for investors. Rather marvellously, the Secretary of State has managed not only to frustrate campaigners, but to disenfranchise investors from any long-term aspirations to invest in the sector.
The Secretary of State says that he has announced a ban on water company bonuses. Hang on: that was a policy that we brought forward in our time in government and that the Secretary of State is now attempting to reannounce and pass off as his own. It was the Conservatives who announced a ban on water company bosses’ bonuses, linked shareholder dividends to environmental performance, quadrupled water company inspections, fast-tracked investments to cut spills and launched a whistleblowing portal for water company workers to report breaches.
It is surprising to hear the Secretary of State claim that his Government are truly serious about this issue, when their proposals are less firm than the measures delivered by the previous Government. He could take real action right now by progressing the last Conservative Administration’s plans for an automatic ban on water company bosses’ bonuses when offences take place. Rehashing announcements already set in motion by the Conservative Government, putting forward policies that will not actually put more pressure on water company bosses and then simply pressing pause on a year-long review will not result in the widespread change that Labour promised its voters.
The Secretary of State acknowledges that the announced review will make no recommendations that affect the current price review ’24 process, meaning that there will be no chance of the Government considering making any significant change until 2029 at the earliest. Will he provide an outline of the timeframe associated with actual recommendations from the review being implemented and put in place? When is any real benefit from this further review, taskforce or commission likely to be experienced, not only for the water industry, in terms of infrastructure improvements, but for the bill payer and the environment? It seems to me that the Secretary of State is just kicking the can down the road with another review, another taskforce and another commission, and removing himself from any of the tough decisions.
The Secretary of State said that the review would have no impact on the price review ’24 process. Will he outline exactly when the positive impacts will come? By my calculations, it will not be until 2029 at the earliest. Will he also outline the impact of the review on the measures proposed in the Water (Special Measures) Bill? What will be done if the recommendations do not sit comfortably with the current proposals?
One cannot help concluding that the Secretary of State is out of depth on this issue, cannot deliver on the tough language that he promised in the run-up to the general election and is now doing nothing more than attempting to kick the tough decisions down the road and into the long grass. This Secretary of State seems to be all bark and no bite.
Steve Reed
Well, that was all a little bit embarrassing, wasn’t it? The previous Government had 14 years in power, our rivers, lakes and seas are awash with record levels of pollution, and that is all the Conservatives have to say. I took action seven days after the general election: I brought the water chief execs into my office, and we agreed that money earmarked for investment will be ringfenced so that it cannot be diverted to pay multimillion-pound bonuses to water chief execs who oversee failure in the water sector, as happened on the shadow Minister’s watch. The commission will reset the sector that the Conservatives broke, and clean up the water that they polluted. It will report to the Government in June and inform subsequent legislation.
Flooding: Bedfordshire
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Blake Stephenson
Perhaps I will say it again. England has suffered its second worst harvest on record, with persistent wet weather, and waterlogged fields risk putting our farmers out of business over the medium to long term.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Building on that point, many of our farmers—not only across Bedfordshire, but across the whole of the country—are facing their second serious crop losses in a growing period. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly frustrating that, despite the last Conservative Government having allocated £50 million through the farming recovery fund, many farmers who urgently need that money—money that was guaranteed to get out of the door—are not yet receiving it from the new Administration?
Blake Stephenson
My hon. Friend is exactly right: it is very frustrating. I know that constituents who farm in my constituency are incredibly frustrated that funding will not be made available.
The persistent wet weather is a disaster not only for farmers, but for all of us, because it impacts yield and quality, resulting in higher food prices and threats to national food security. The Government need to take action, recognising that farmers in Bedfordshire are businesspeople, but also that they provide a public benefit by taking flooding that would otherwise flow into our towns and villages. I hope the Minister will work with colleagues to design a scheme to properly recognise the contribution our farmers make by allowing their fields to flood, and to remunerate them for that contribution.
Our local councils—as a councillor myself, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—have done fantastic work to support residents. They have been forced to pick up the pieces and the bill to manage the response, and now to put things right. They have not got everything right—far from it—but they have stepped up during this emergency and provided significant resources to keep people safe, particularly the most vulnerable. Our households, businesses, farmers and councils now need the Government to step up and do their bit by releasing funds to support our communities to recover and improve resilience. The Minister has discretion in this area, and I was surprised to receive a response to a written question this afternoon suggesting that the flooding was not at a sufficient scale to be considered exceptional enough to release recovery funding—perhaps the Minister will address that point in her closing remarks. I am concerned that the Government fail to appreciate the significant but localised impact of this particular flooding event. My constituents want, and deserve, support.
Perhaps the most high-profile victim of our recent flooding was the A421, which was closed for weeks after more than 60 million litres of water collected in a dip in the road at Marston Moretaine. National Highways has worked hard around the clock to reopen the road, but as we look at lessons learned, significant questions must be asked about how we got here—how a major A-road, connecting Bedford to the M1, built this century, can have been built down into the ground in a historic floodplain, which of course is prone to flooding. It was designed in such a way that it regularly floods a little, but was built with flooding mitigations insufficient to deal with the kind of flooding that could become all too common in the years ahead. As this Government look to build similar infrastructure in the years ahead, we must heed the warnings of the A421 and build in a way that is protected from not the flooding of yesterday, but the flooding of tomorrow.
Roads are not the only area where problems with ineffective infrastructure have exacerbated the impact of flooding on my residents in Mid Bedfordshire. The blocked drains reported right across Mid Beds in places like Lower Shelton, Flitwick, Cranfield, Harlington and Maulden significantly increase the likelihood of surface water flooding. Clearing the drains regularly, if not the sole solution, represents common sense to my constituents and is a quick answer to mitigate at least some of the risk. They want to see the schedule of maintenance improved materially. Leaves fall every autumn and block drains, not every three years, and utility companies dig up roads and fill drains with mud and tarmac, only to leave them to be cleared by the council in its three-yearly cycle. This simply is not good enough, and it is putting property and lives at risk.
I therefore call on the Government to urgently consider introducing a new statutory duty on local authorities to clear drains and culverts regularly, backed by central funding at the Budget to ensure that councils have the resources they need. I also urge the Government—this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) raised—to look at the way that internal drainage boards are funded, to ensure that they have the resources they need to manage local flood risks. I ask the Minister to commit to meeting me and interested colleagues to discuss how that might be achieved.
Government Support for the RSPCA
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate. Having interacted with her many times in the previous Parliament, when she was a shadow Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I know that she cares deeply about animal welfare issues. It is good to see her championing those issues again—what better way than by securing an important debate on the RSPCA in its 200th anniversary year? It is thanks to the hard work of bodies such as the RSPCA, covering enforcement, education and campaigning, that the UK is the G7 nation highest on the world animal protection index. I welcome Chris Sherwood, the chief executive of the RSPCA, and his team to the Public Gallery.
The RSPCA’s work is truly staggering in scale and spans more than two centuries of dedication. In 2023 alone, the RSPCA responded to more than 110,000 incidents and provided more than half a million hours of care to animals needing treatment or rehabilitation. We must not forget that the RSPCA receives a call on its cruelty and advice line every 32 seconds. Nearly 10,000 people offer their time as volunteers to the RSPCA, which is truly commendable. This monumental effort provides thousands of wild animals, pets and livestock with care and protection from cruelty. Vitally, the RSPCA also conducts much work with animal owners to deliver important advice on how best to care for their animals.
I agree with all Members present who have made positive comments about the RSPCA. It is a real success story, showing how people across the country can come together to make a difference on something they care deeply about. It is fantastic that we live in a country where people are empowered to make a difference and feel free to act on their convictions without relying solely on state inspectorates. As has been highlighted, the RSPCA receives almost no Government funding, operating through charitable donations and its internal fundraising operations.
The RSPCA plays a vital role in the enforcement of our animal welfare laws. Through private prosecutions, every one of us has the right to bring forward a prosecution where we feel a crime has been committed, and the RSPCA regularly does this through a sponsoring individual. I hope the Government will continue to support private prosecutions; they are a vital part of our legal system, ensuring the law is owned and accessible to us all, and not just the state.
Of course, the RSPCA carries out this work under the law, and I will take a moment to highlight the previous Government’s work to strengthen the legal protections for animals. Since leaving the European Union, we have had greater freedom to determination our own animal welfare laws, including passing the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—a landmark piece of legislation. The Act created the Animal Sentience Committee, which provides expert advice to Government on animal welfare reforms. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 also delivered on the previous Government’s commitment to ban the export of live animals, ending the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury caused by their export. Several Members have already spoken in this debate of the Act being a good piece of legislation.
In 2016 and 2023, the Conservative Administration made changes to the law requiring dogs and cats to be microchipped in England, ensuring that they can be reunited with their owners. It was good to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), whom I welcome to Westminster Hall, on microchipping specifically. In 2019, wild animals were banned in circuses, and the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the maximum possible sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years.
I shall pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) around the work that the previous Administration were doing collectively and with our devolved nations. I hope that the Minister continues the dialogue with all devolved nations—I am sure he will—to ensure that we can work at pace on improving animal welfare legislation.
I urge the Government to continue at pace with the key areas of work that we were doing on livestock worrying. In particular, we need to ensure that the toughening of regulations through the implementation of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill continues to receive support from the Government. Too often, time and time again, we hear that farmers are seeing their own livestock being killed or seriously savaged—seriously injured—as a result of people taking their dogs across fields. This needs to stop. I therefore hope that the Government will introduce that piece of legislation, and that it can become law. I seek confirmation from the Minister that that will be the case. It is only right that those who are irresponsible with their pets, when privileged to pass across someone else’s land, feel the full consequences of their actions.
I thank the civil service team for their assistance not only to me but to previous Ministers in the work on the pieces of legislation that we introduced.
For some time the RSPCA has been campaigning on the distress caused to animals by the irresponsible use of fireworks. That issue is particularly relevant in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, where fireworks are regularly set off throughout the year, late into the evening and sometimes at all hours of the night. That causes huge distress to pets and other animals—not to mention their owners, struggling to sleep. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the Minister what work the Government plan to undertake to enforce our existing firework laws, and whether he believes that it is necessary to toughen up existing legislation in this area.
As all Members have highlighted through their contributions today, we are a nation of animal lovers, and what better way to celebrate that than by holding today’s debate and celebrating the work of the RSPCA over the past 200 years? Again, I would like to champion the work that my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), has been doing on raising animal welfare matters. I hope that she will continue to champion that cause from the Government Benches, and I hope that, with continued cross-party support, the RSPCA will continue to deliver the fantastic care that it already does for animals throughout the country.
Farming and Food Security
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Food security is national security, and in a time of rising global uncertainty, we must support the British farmer and the British food and drink sector to deliver high-quality domestic food for our economy and our national security. That means providing farmers and growers with the certainty they deserve.
Unfortunately, in recent weeks and over the course of this debate, we have seen what happens when a Member for one of the least rural constituencies in the country is put in charge of the countryside. Some £50 million of the farming recovery fund is not yet paid out. Some £75 million ring-fenced for internal drainage boards has not yet been distributed. There is no commitment on the £220 million for farm innovation and productivity grants. There are reports that the farming budget is about to be slashed, leaving uncertainty and farmers facing a cliff edge.
While the first assault of this Labour Government has been on pensioners right across the country, I fear that farmers are next on their hit list. The Secretary of State has had the chance in this debate to stand up for farmers and to confirm that the farming budget and other schemes will be protected. Instead, he seems to have already surrendered to the Chancellor, suggesting a cut of £100 million. I fear that it will be much more.
As we know, Labour could only bring itself to include 87 words in its manifesto on its plan for farmers, which stands in contrast to our Conservative Government’s commitment to food security and our rural sector by putting food at the centre of policymaking. We introduced the food security index and an annual food security report, and we set out plans to introduce legally binding targets to enhance our food security. We established the farm to fork summit, held at Downing Street, bringing together key stakeholders from across the food and farming sector. That was all to ensure that the Government’s Departments were aligned on this agenda. We were willing to look farmers in the eye, to engage directly with the whole agricultural sector and to make sure that its priorities were heard across the whole of Government. I ask the Minister: why is the Prime Minister not guaranteeing the same level of engagement and reporting?
I congratulate the new Members who gave their maiden speeches: the hon. Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), as well as my friend, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), with whom I went to our local comprehensive school in Lincolnshire. I look up to the Gallery and I can see not only his mother but my secondary school teacher looking down at me. I welcome Mrs Taylor to the House. I am sure she will be proud of her son, who has got a seat on these Benches.
We have all collectively agreed in our speeches on the need for certainty right now for our farmers. At a time when farmers need to plan, Labour is offering them a farming manifesto that could be placed on a postcard. That is exactly why we have had to secure this debate today, bringing Ministers from the Department to the Chamber, all with the best interests of giving our new Labour Government the best chance to stand up for our farmers. In the past 100 days in office, we have seen that the Secretary of State is too weak to stand up for our farmers and too weak to even stand up for his own Department against the Chancellor’s red pen.
As has been said, we have experienced the wettest 18 months on record. That cannot go unanswered, and thousands of farmers across the country are being crippled by crop losses and damage to their fields. In fact, farmers are already fearing for their second year without any crop at all. The £50 million pledged by the last Conservative Government was designed specifically to support farmers hit by flooding, and it was ready to go when we left office. Farmers on the ground, however, say that they have not seen a penny of it. Where is that money? Why has it not been delivered to the farmers who desperately need it?
The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and I also pledged £75 million for internal drainage boards to give them the investment they needed to protect the worst hit agricultural land from flooding. Again, some small amounts have been released, but the vast majority of the funds have not been released by the Department. Why is that? We know that the Labour party’s grasp on the public finances is tenuous at best, but this is vital money for our farmers, with businesses on the brink of collapse. Do Ministers realise that for every day that goes by without that support, another farmer gets closer to shutting up shop?
Labour has a choice in the debate and in bringing forward the Budget this month. My advice to the Secretary of State is to pick up the phone, speak to the Chancellor, back British farming, fight for the farming budget in full and deliver for farmers up and down the country.