Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the years of Conservative failure, where we saw boarded-up shops, closed pubs and places feeling in decline. We are turning the page with a £125 million fund that will be invested to bring derelict buildings, like abandoned cinemas and shopping centres, back into use for the community. We are putting power back into the hands of local communities like Dudley, so that they can have a real say over what their high street looks like.

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

11. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of powers available to councils to stop the opening of vape and barber shops on high streets.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

We are giving local leaders and communities more control over their high street mix of shops and their high streets through the “Hope on the High Street” strategy, which the Secretary of State just referred to. We are also consulting on requiring planning permission for new vape shops and a new licensing regime for vape shops and tobacco retailers. The Budget confirmed that we will remove business rates relief from vape shops and adult gaming centres to better target that relief on businesses that support thriving high streets. Furthermore, we are investing £30 million per year in funding for agencies such as trading standards to tackle these dodgy shops.

[Robbie Moore]

This year alone West Yorkshire trading standards has raided 20 premises in Keighley, seizing illegal and counterfeit goods, and yet residents watch those same dodgy shops reopen within days. Our local trading standards has received well over 3,000 intelligence reports about dodgy shops such as minimarts, vape shops, takeaways and barbers, with reports linked to money laundering, drug supplying, modern slavery and illegal working—and that is just within Keighley. Despite the Government’s rhetoric of wanting to take a tough stance on this issue, why was West Yorkshire trading standards not included in the latest round of funding to support local trading standards with law enforcement action against organised criminal activity? Will the Minister look to resolve this issue?

[Jim McMahon]

The point the hon. Gentleman raises is exactly why the Government are taking action. People look at how our high streets and town centres have been transformed, and they see in plain sight that something just is not right. They see the type of convenience stores he is talking about, and the barber shops and the vape shops, and they know like we know that what is going on inside those premises is not lawful. The connection to human trafficking and other illegal activity is quite clear from the investigations that have taken place. The additional funding we have provided is about targeting it to where the assessed need is, but to be clear every police force and every trading standards department should be prioritising this matter as a matter of course.

Budget Resolutions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Chancellor’s big phrase in this Budget has been “breathing space”. It has been said time and again, but it is utterly false, because the Chancellor has not given businesses any breathing space at all. There is no breathing space on employer national insurance. Labour’s job tax stays exactly where it is, punishing employers for yet another year. There is no breathing space on wages. The national living wage has actually gone up by 3.9% from April, on top of the Employment Rights Act 2025, with nothing announced to help employers meet the costs.

Even the Office for Budget Responsibility warns that these policies will seriously damage job creation in this country. There has been no real breathing space on business rates. The Chancellor says that he is freezing business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure in real terms, but the British Retail Consortium has rightly pointed out that this is just “smoke and mirrors”. This is not breathing space at all. This is our businesses being stifled yet again by this Labour Government. I ask the Minister: what are their ambitions for British businesses? It seems evident from this Budget that they do not have any. They are taxing our British businesses again and again.

All this matters because it is impacting my constituency, which is full of hard-working people. I think of the independent shops on Cavendish Street and Low Street fighting to keep Keighley a thriving place, as well as the cafés, boutiques and family businesses on the Grove and Brook Street in Ilkley, and those businesses right across Silsden, Steeton and Riddlesden and our wider area who are working incredibly hard. The pubs, the tradespeople, the hairdressers, the start-ups—they are all hard-working people, yet this Government think that employers in those small independent businesses are not workers. They put out that narrative as if those employers need to be taxed more.

Let me tell the House about one of those businesses, which I visited just yesterday. The Turkey Inn in Goose Eye is a pub that is much loved by locals and visitors alike, and I called in there last night to have a meal. The owners of that pub are grafters. They produce excellent food that is second to none and they support our local community with many local activities. They do everything right, working day in, day out to support the community, but yesterday, on the back of this Budget, they announced that they were cutting their opening hours from seven days a week to just four, and they were clear about why. In their own words, they said:

“With no measures in the budget to help small hospitality businesses and local pubs like ours, we must take this step”.

That is the verdict not of a politician or of a Labour think-tank but of hard-working people in my constituency who have been impacted by this third Labour Budget.

The Turkey Inn is not alone. I speak to pubs and small independent businesses every single week in my constituency and they are telling me the same thing. Labour is not on the side of our hard-working businesses, and that is impacting them. This Labour Budget has not provided any breathing space at all. This Government must wake up and listen to our small and medium-sized businesses, who are the backbone of our communities and our local economies, because they are pushing them to breaking point. If the Government do not wake up and listen, I fear for all of them. A simple policy of tax, tax, tax on our businesses with more regulation is stifling those businesses, not helping them thrive.

Building Homes and Renewing Communities

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue: we have to do more to make sure that people who have exercised all their appeals and want to return home can do so. I will work with my colleagues in the Home Office to look at how we can tackle that issue, alongside the package that we are putting in place over the winter.

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

Silsden in my constituency is being inundated by a huge number of housing developments. In the last few years, we have had seven different housing developers all building houses, with no focus whatsoever on improving infrastructure or services. It is getting to the stage that Silsden cannot cope. It gets worse than that, because the section 106 money that is collected, which Bradford council negotiated with the housing developer under the last Labour administration, is not being spent on mitigating the negative implications of the housing developments, and the council has no local plan in place. We are seeing a lot of speculative development coming down the line, and it is simply not good enough. I have to say to the Secretary of State that this was all overseen by the last Labour administration at Bradford council.

What in today’s announcement from the Secretary of State will deliver something positive for my constituents, and something that addresses the key issue of infrastructure and service improvement when house building does happen?

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. We have strengthened the role of infrastructure within the national planning policy framework. The announcement is about making sure that local areas can deliver on local plans, and I have been very clear on that as the Secretary of State. I can hear his frustration about section 106 money, and there are legitimate reasons why it is sometimes delayed, but it is an area that I have focused on since returning to this post. I have focused on that with the Housing Minister, and I am due to be in touch again with local authorities to ensure that the money is going out the door and that right-to-buy receipts, which we have strengthened for councils, are going out the door in order to create the homes and infrastructure that local areas desperately need.

Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a member. I also thank all the petitioners from across the country who kindly signed the petition which, put simply, asks whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permanently barred from standing for elected public office. That is a serious question that deserves careful consideration by Members.

Before I go any further, let me be clear that it is my firm belief that we should never be in a situation where someone convicted of terrorism can stand for office in this country. I accept that we cannot always rely on the integrity of some overseas courts, but a terrorism conviction is incredibly serious and should have an impact on a person’s right to stand for and be elected to public office.

There has, quite rightly, been a lot of emphasis on the specific case of Shahid Butt, who, as we have heard, stood for election to the Sparkhill ward in the May 2026 local elections for Birmingham city council. At the time, it was known that Mr Butt had previously been sentenced in Yemen to five years in prison for terrorism, after being convicted with five other UK nationals of plotting to blow up the British consulate there, among other locations. This individual should never have been permitted to stand for election and—as others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, have said—it is deeply worrying that people in the ward voted for someone who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences.

This debate is incredibly important because it opens up a much wider conversation about who can and cannot stand for public office. It is right that we properly scrutinise any convictions that have been awarded by foreign courts, but surely the fact that a conviction has been awarded sparks a level of interest in an individual, so I urge the Government to consider tightening the rules. The reality is that if someone becomes elected, having previously been convicted of terrorism offences, either to this place or to a local authority, they not only represent their ward members or constituents but have access to information. Public confidence is at risk of being derailed because of that individual. What does it say about democracy in this country when an individual who has previously been convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand for election?

I do not think the Government’s response to the petition is anywhere near good enough. They have responded by saying that they

“currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria”

for those standing for election who have been convicted of such offences, but that they keep the counter-terrorism framework

“under constant review to ensure it is fit for purpose.”

I say gently to the Minister that the current scenario is not fit for purpose if someone such as Mr Butt was able to stand for election in the May 2026 Birmingham city council elections. Given the level of concern expressed in the debate, what will the Government be doing to tighten up provisions to deal with what the petitioner is ultimately asking for?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion, and all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate.

I wholly agree with what the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said about terrorism. All those who bear the scars, the pain and the trauma of political violence know that the value of our democracy is not just good government, but the right of us all to peace. I feel proud every day of the work my predecessors did in office to bring about peace on these islands, and I am glad the hon. Member reasserted the value of that peace through this debate.

Democracy depends on public participation, so it is only right and fitting that I acknowledge and thank the more than 200,000 people who signed the petition, which calls for a ban on anyone convicted of terrorism offences from standing for public office. The Government recognise the concern that underpins the petition: public confidence in our democratic institutions matters, and terrorism represents one of the gravest threats to our society, as Members have said. Although the House clearly understands that the threat of terrorism is serious, the question is whether a further electoral disqualification is the right, proportionate and effective response, and how any such change would sit alongside both the current and wider proposed legal frameworks.

In my response, I will set out what the Government are doing, but first I want to respond to what Members have said by repeating the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis)—now the Defence Secretary—from Question Time on 8 June. In response to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), he said:

“the defending democracy taskforce…is looking carefully at the issue…The Government are considering whether further action is required, and I should be happy to work with him on it.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 10.]

I will make sure that the Defence Secretary sees a copy of the debate we have had today, and I again extend that offer to Members to work with the defending democracy taskforce on these issues. I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his offer, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for her interest. I know that the Defence Secretary will be grateful for the points they have raised.

It is worth noting, as Members have, the wider context in which the petition has come before the House. As has been set out, during the May local elections there were reports about an individual standing for local office who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences overseas. As we all know in this House, elections are democracy in action. The community considered the candidates before them and made its choice at the ballot box, and that individual was not elected. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said about Birmingham, and he is right to stand up for the good sense of the people of Birmingham. I look forward to being in the fine city of Birmingham on Thursday to hear more about issues we are working on there.

Our system places trust in not only legal thresholds but the judgment of the electorate. People will ask whether somebody with a serious terrorism conviction should be able to stand at all, even if the electorate do ultimately reject them.

[Robbie Moore]

Before we move on from Shahid Butt, I want to be clear that he was allowed to stand for local elections. The Government have said they currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election. Why is that? At the moment, somebody convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand. Why would the Government not want to change that?

[Alison McGovern]

As I set out to Members at the beginning of my contribution, the now Defence Secretary has said that the defending democracy taskforce is keeping this under review.

I will now discuss the disqualification framework and set out the current position. In England, a person is disqualified from being elected to, or being a member of, a local authority if they have been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for three months or more, including a suspended sentence, within the previous five years. Candidates are required to declare that they are not disqualified when they submit nomination papers, and making a false statement is a criminal offence. Where eligibility is disputed, that is a matter for the courts. That would be particularly true where the issues may involve historic convictions or offences committed overseas. Clearly, returning officers cannot make subjective judgments over the suitability of eligible candidates.

The phrase “standing for public office” covers a wide range of roles, each with different responsibilities and existing disqualification rules. Changing those rules would mean carefully considering whether the same approach should apply to not just councillors, but mayors, police and crime commissioners, and Members of Parliament and devolved Governments. Any exclusion such as that proposed must be principled, proportionate and legally robust. A lifetime or indefinite ban is the most serious restriction. If Parliament chooses to create such a bar, it must be precise about who it captures and why it is necessary, and safeguard against unfair or unintended consequences that prevent citizens from engaging in our democracy.

Let me turn briefly to the counter-terrorism framework. The threat from terrorism is always evolving, which is why we always keep our broader counter-terrorism framework under review and ensure that our operational partners have the tools they need to mitigate risk to the public. Independent of disqualification from elected office, the UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. That includes a range of specialist counter-terrorism powers that support detection and disruption of terrorist risk, as well as a robust toolkit for managing terrorist offenders upon release. That is supported through the independent scrutiny provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Electoral law determines who may stand for office; counter-terrorism law exists to provide the police and other operational partners with a toolkit to disrupt, investigate and prosecute terrorism-related activity. Alongside both, the Government are taking action to strengthen our democracy and electoral integrity, and to protect those who participate in our democracy—I just came from the statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), whose was responsible for the Representation of the People Bill, gave in the Commons Chamber.

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, are totally unacceptable and have a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Impersonation and fraudulent nominations reduce the trust integral to democracy. That is why this Government have introduced the Representation of the People Bill to take decisive action to secure our elections against those who threaten them, to protect those who participate, to ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.

Requiring candidates to submit ID and sign a declaration to confirm that they understand the legal consequences of providing false information will strengthen public confidence without creating unnecessary barriers to standing. The Bill will empower courts to give tougher sentences to those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. The measures will be supported by working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning and improved safety for returning officers and candidates.

From the moment a candidate puts themselves forward and asks the public to place trust in them, they are subject to public scrutiny. Disqualification rules decide whether someone is legally allowed to stand for election; they do not decide whether that person has the character, judgment or conduct to serve—that is for the public to decide at the ballot box. Once elected, Members are expected to uphold codes of conduct based on the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, which are the foundations of trust in public life.

High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. Our high streets are facing huge challenges at the moment. Nationally, fiscal pressures have been put on them—employer national insurance contributions, the minimum wage, the business rates increase—and the Employment Rights Act 2025 is making it even more challenging for many of our high street businesses to take on young people. Then, of course, we have the tourism tax, or holiday tax, coming down the line.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I have been a pharmacist and an employer for nearly two decades, and nearly every good business was already doing what is in the Employment Rights Act to recruit staff. Recruiters need to offer those things. It is simple.

[Robbie Moore]

Then why on earth legislate and introduce further regulations that impose much more of a burden on our high street businesses? That is exactly what businesses are telling me, that this legislation is making it more costly to do business.

The tourism tax will tax businesses in Ilkley and Haworth, imposing much more of a burden on them for less money to be spent locally. What does that do? It gives our Mayor of West Yorkshire more power to use my area as a cash cow for money to be spent in other areas across West Yorkshire, rather than investing it in my constituency.

Locally, Bradford council has imposed car parking charges across the whole of my district, including for on-street parking, which is making it much less attractive for people to come and spend money in Ilkley. A petition signed by 4,000 residents was submitted to Bradford council, but the council went ahead regardless. It costs £3,000 to £10,000 to install a parking machine. In the village of Addingham, which has only 18 parking spaces, it will take decades before the council starts making any money.

My simple request to the Minister—and indeed to Bradford council, which I hope is listening—is to remove those parking charges, take away the cost to visitors and residents who want to spend their money locally, and back our businesses. We are fed up with being used as a cash cow for the rest of Bradford to benefit at our expense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I am very happy to work with the right hon. Member. I was about to say that I would be happy to meet her to talk about Ravenscourt, which I think she referred to in her speech, but I extend that to any part of her constituency that will benefit from the Government’s Pride in Place funding.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I will make a bit of progress, if that is all right.

Supporting high streets means Government backing our high streets. Each place—each town, high street and village—has a different personality and identity. The role of Government should be to support them and enhance the place they live in. The Government believe that people who live in those places know them best. That is why we are moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach, equipping places with practical levers for change and shifting funding, decision making and accountability from Whitehall to the hands of mayors, councils, local businesses and residents.

The high streets rental auctions are a key example of that, giving councils the power to bring persistently vacant properties back into use. We have just announced £10 million to support the expansion and roll-out of that programme, helping councils to identify opportunities, engage landlords and get properties back into use. Alongside the community right to buy, now backed by £61 million of funding, that will give local people a greater say in the future of their area. In my experience, local people are not short of opinions on how they want to shape their area, but crucial actions by Government are needed to back that vision.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who spoke about the need to renovate older buildings. The Government have taken some good steps on that. Members today have called for changes to address the blight of betting shops and vape shops. The Government have taken some action with the gambling cumulative impact assessments, but I recognise that many are looking for further action, so that we can put a stop to the betting shops popping up all over our high streets. It is not enough simply to respond to change. We must empower local communities and provide the resources to those local communities and councils to shape their high streets.

The points hon. Members made about beautiful design and places looking nice are important. There is not a lot a local authority or community can do if people have to step over rubbish or, frankly, do not feel safe in the local park in the town centre. Design codes are important, as is the national planning policy framework.

Proposed Visitor Levy

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this incredibly important debate. Numerous constituents have contacted me about the proposals, which are causing great concern for the hospitality sector and tourist and charity groups across Keighley and Ilkley.

In February I met Toby Hammond, the lead volunteer for West Yorkshire Scouts. He first got in touch with me following comments made by Chief Scout Dwayne Fields about the impacts that the proposed tourist tax would have on youth groups such as the Scouts, Brownies and Girl Guides. For months, Toby has been campaigning tirelessly to seek an exemption from the proposed tourist tax for under-18s and volunteer groups. He has written to four metro mayors, 14 Members of Parliament and 159 local councillors, and amassed 64,000 views on social media posts to do with this campaign. I have no doubt that it was because of his efforts and others’ that West Yorkshire has now secured a full exemption from any future visitor levy for Scouts, Girl Guides and Brownies, as confirmed last night via a tweet by the Mayor of West Yorkshire on X.

Given those efforts, how must it have felt for Toby and other Scout, Brownie and Girl Guide leaders across West Yorkshire to be dismissed merely as scaremongers by Mayor of West Yorkshire Tracy Brabin? They have been raising these issues for months, but the mayor’s office refused to publicly back an exemption for Scouts and Girl Guides until late last night via a tweet on X. It seems that the West Yorkshire mayoralty jumped before it was pushed. I sincerely hope that the Minister will join me in encouraging all metro mayors across the country to guarantee an exemption for under-18s and charity groups from any additional levy on overnight stays, to avoid a postcode lottery scenario for volunteer-led groups.

On postcode lotteries, I have definitely won the lottery in representing Keighley and Ilkley, because it is a wonderful place with incredible attractions such as Cliffe Castle, East Riddlesden Hall, the moorlands and Brontë country—Ilkley and Haworth—which attract thousands of visitors a year. However, it is not London, Paris or Milan and therefore does not need to keep up with its so-called international counterparts, which is how one West Yorkshire Labour MP has tried to justify proposals for this levy to her constituents. The vast majority of people staying overnight in our area are British workers, families and young people, which means that it is not really a tourist tax at all. It is another tax on British people, which could cost an average family going on holiday in England an extra £100, meaning fewer nights spent overnight in accommodation in constituencies such as mine—in Keighley and Ilkley. I fear that once these funds are collected, there will be no ringfencing associated with the tax coming from places such as Ilkley and Haworth; it will simply go into the West Yorkshire pot to be spent elsewhere.

Quite frankly, there are no winners with this tax: our young people, businesses and constituents will see increased costs, and some businesses may never recover. Does the Minister agree that the businesses, Scout leaders and tourist groups that have shared their concerns about this tax with me are not scaremongers but good, hard-working people with genuine concerns about what a visitor levy could mean for them and their livelihoods?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Quarries: Planning Policy

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. When I first supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) in applying for this debate, there was an ongoing planning application in Silsden in my constituency, to reopen a local quarry at Horn Crag. I am pleased to say that since then the application has been rejected—not only at the initial stage, but on appeal. While Horn Crag quarry may no longer be a current threat to Silsden, the whole experience throws up many issues relating to quarries and our wider planning system.

I met a number of Silsden residents, my neighbours on the ground, who had fought tooth and nail to have their voices heard by Bradford council and the Planning Inspectorate. It was only after considerable effort on their part that their concerns—about the environment, the impact on nature, air quality, complex site operations, ecology, drainage, potential water pollution challenges and congestion through Silsden and Addingham—were heeded.

It is easy to understand their passion and anger when we consider the broader planning context in Silsden. The town has been inundated with hundreds of new homes in just the last 10 years, and many of those strongly opposed proposals went through without Bradford council even batting an eye. Many were expecting the Horn Crag quarry application to be simply another case of the council ignoring local wishes. People might accuse those Silsden residents of nimbyism, but when the Isherwood family made a proposal for a new farm shop on the outskirts of the town, which was well supported by many local people, it was rejected by the same planning authority that had no issue with approving a huge number of new houses across Silsden.

While stopping Horn Crag quarry was a definite win for those residents, it will not be enough to restore local people’s confidence in our planning system. That is why I think it is really important that we continue to have these debates in the Houses of Parliament, to explore how the planning system for quarries can better reflect local views and provide assurance to local planners that schemes are suitable. It is clear, from the many contributions that we have had today, that the system is currently not fit for purpose. It is also clear that many quarry applications are not sufficiently considering the impacts on air quality, water quality, noise and vibration.

What has not yet been mentioned in the debate is the possibility of requiring a bond when quarry developers put forward an application. That money, which will have been negotiated by a local authority in putting the bond in place, will then be able to provide financial reassurance that, if a quarry operator goes bust, restoration and aftercare can still take place. However, when bonds are being negotiated, they are not being negotiated robustly enough to deal with current economic pressures and inflationary challenges. When things go wrong, the bond should be there to provide reassurance. It is frustrating that, when landfill sites are not considered, bonds are not put in place at the start, and I would like the system to reflect that.

I am concerned that the legislation currently going through the House is not dealing with the challenges. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill that has been put forward by this Labour Government, alongside the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, is actually having negative implications on environmental mitigation, as well as the ability of local people to have their say as part of the planning application. No one wants to say no to any development, and of course quarries are needed, but we must ensure that we have robust ways to manage their undesirable consequences, and that local people are brought along as part of that process. At the moment, I feel that they are not. I am just glad that, in the case of Silsden, common sense prevailed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I will come to that point in due course.

Proposals in respect of transport impacts should be supported by a detailed transport assessment, which is considered as part of the decision-making process. Further information to support the implementation of the policies set out in the national planning policy framework is provided in planning practice guidance.

To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, I should highlight the fact that the Government are about to launch a consultation on a revised national planning policy framework, including a clearer set of national policies for decision making on mineral extraction and other matters. This is a great opportunity for all Members and the communities they represent to engage. In the light of the concerns that they have raised today, I encourage them to take part in that consultation.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Samantha Dixon]

With your indulgence, Dr Murrison, I would like to continue.

As part of the planning application process, applications and supporting information, including statutory environmental assessments where required, are consulted on with stakeholders and the public. Where issues are identified, the imposition of conditions can assist in mitigating impacts to acceptable levels. Where planning conditions are breached, including during quarry operations, and issues arise as a result, the mineral planning authority has powers to take action to make sure issues are addressed.

Although much of today’s debate has focused on the negative impacts of quarrying, I would like to thank the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for recognising the vital role that quarries play in providing the raw materials needed to support our society. The Government have an ambitious growth agenda, which cannot be delivered without a sufficient supply of minerals to feed our construction and manufacturing sectors. The intrinsic link between growth and the provision of minerals is recognised in the national planning policy framework, which is clear that we need a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. The framework also sets out that, when determining planning applications, great weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy, except in relation to coal extraction.

Importantly, what distinguishes quarries from most other forms of development is that their location is driven by geology, which is fixed. In this context, minerals can be worked only where they are found, which influences where quarries can be located. Working of minerals is a temporary land use, and all planning applications for extraction will require an approved restoration and aftercare scheme. The NPPF indicates that mineral planning authorities should provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity, to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes.

[Robbie Moore]

Great, that is very kind of the Minister. Seven days ago, the Campaign to Protect Rural England commented that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is working its way through the House, will have a detrimental impact on environmental regulation and reduce the influence of local people and their ability to have their views heard when quarry applications are put forward. I wonder whether the Minister might like to comment on that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Bringing decision making closer to local people and making it more accountable and more reflective of local needs is a laudable aim, but that is not what the Bill will do. Rather than bringing decision making closer to hard-working local people, it will cement the damaging present system of oversized unitary authorities and dubiously useful mayoralties. If we want our communities to have responsive local government with easily accessible political leaders who deliver on the desires of residents and are accountable at the ballot box, we should not be pushing for larger local government boundaries. If anything, we should be reducing their size.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

In Scotland, we have so-called devolution, but the reality on the ground is that the Scottish Government are centralising more and more power. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill creates the potential risk of that?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely share that concern, and I will give my hon. Friend an example of what we face across the Bradford district; the people across Keighley and Ilkley have long known the dangers to smaller communities when such amalgamations occur. In 1974, their well liked and well remembered councils were abolished and absorbed into a larger Bradford council unitary authority, which is one of the largest in the country with a population of 565,000; the average size of a unitary authority is about 250,000 people. Since then, Bradford council has consistently prioritised its namesake, extracting ever higher council tax and costs from outlying areas such as my constituency and neighbouring Shipley and funnelling them into city centre projects of no benefit to the people who have paid for them.

[Andrew Rosindell]

My friend is making some excellent points. The best example, which is from when this started, is the creation of Greater London in 1965. Ever since then, areas like Romford have been paying money into central London and losing our local control, local identity and local democracy, and it has been costing us an absolute fortune. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy and the wrong direction to go in?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. The Bill is not about local democracy; it is about taking the power for decision making away from local people on where their council tax should be spent. That is why I am advocating that the Government should stop the Bill from progressing.

Bradford council is made up of 90 councillors, with Bradford having a greater number of councillors on the council than Keighley and Ilkley combined. That may be reflective of their rural population, but it is completely airbrushing out the distinctly different needs, desires and priorities of areas such as mine. That is why I will advocate continuously for us in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley—and indeed the Shipley constituency—to have our own unitary authority outside that of Bradford.

Mayoralties have been arguably a greater challenge. When a constituent has an issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and other Members of the House know that they should not have any difficulty in contacting their parliamentarians as our constituency offices are on the high streets and our emails are always open. We have personal and deep connections to the local communities we represent and are familiar with the businesses and the people that make up those communities. But mayoralties operate over regions with hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of residents within them. If a constituent tries to contact their mayor, it is highly likely that the correspondence will never cross the mayor’s desk. Mayoral regions are simply too large for one person to seriously represent the community level.

Aggregating decision making at the strategic authority level makes exactly the same mistake. If a community wants to make an objection, it will have to do so no longer to its local council but to a strategic authority: a body not tied by history, sentiment or even geographical area to those communities, but instead under direction sent by the Government.

If we were serious about devolution, we would follow the lessons experienced by Keighley and Ilkley and make local government work at a community level. We would empower not administrative monstrosities but parish, town and smaller, more regional councils. That is why I will continue to advocate for my area to be taken out of the Bradford unitary authority and to create our own unitary authority. I advocate reversing the local government amalgamations made in the 1970s, not doubling down on them. The Bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not be supported.

Strategy for Elections

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work with the APPG. He is aware of the policy of the Labour party and this Government on first past the post. I refer him to my previous answer on that question.

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

Fair elections must be elections that we can all trust. The most important element of our electoral system is that it is a secret ballot and that it should be down to the individual to make up their own mind. I am therefore deeply concerned that the widespread use of postal voting across the country is allowing dangerous fraud with many voters still intimidated and coerced into using postal votes on the instruction of somebody else. The review covers many practical aspects of postal voting, but what steps are the Government taking to ensure the accuracy and honesty of the postal voting system?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.

Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.

As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.

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

To bring the hon. Member back to the compulsory purchase measures in part 5 of the Bill, which we are discussing today, many residents along the A1 corridor have been severely impacted by the Government’s decision not to continue the development of the A1. Will he consider supporting our new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%? That would help many of his constituents along the A1 corridor. With the new clause in place, they would receive bigger payments for compulsory purchase orders along the A1 corridor.

[David Smith]

All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.

On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 128 would have required the Secretary of State to establish a community benefit scheme in relation to compulsory purchase, so that the equivalent of 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made would be paid into a community benefit fund. I am conscious of time, so will not detain the House for much longer. I know that there will not be a vote on my new clause tonight, but if there is any way in which the Government could improve the support provided to communities affected by these sorts of developments through a community benefit scheme, the Bill would be significantly improved.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. I am sure he will speak to those points further when he contributes later. We should be protecting the market value and not doing anything to interfere with the market—not least because if my new clause were accepted, it would improve the community benefit fund, which in turn would benefit the local residents who are directly affected by these types of projects. If the Bill could be improved in this way, it would be better for the people who live in rural communities, such as those in the Scottish Borders.

As we saw again yesterday, this UK Labour Government have U-turned a lot over the past few months. I hope they will take this opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House so that we can protect our beautiful environment, protect nature, and do better for rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak in this important debate. I will address three amendments that stand in my name: amendments 88 and 89, which go together and relate to hope value, and new clause 107, which relates to the disposal of public land.

Amendments 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple yet important change to the Bill. They would extend the circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order to include playing fields and recreational facilities. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues warmly welcome the important changes in the Bill. Ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process for the purpose of building more affordable homes, so that hope value no longer over-inflates land prices for acquiring authorities. However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. As such, my amendments seek to include recreational facilities such as playing fields in these provisions when an acquiring authority—for instance, a local authority—is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as a sports or recreational facility. They would ensure that hope value would not be applied, thus making the cost more affordable and helping to boost grassroots sports provision in communities up and down the country.

We in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, St Margarets and Whitton are incredibly fortunate to have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, hockey, tennis and much more. Girls’ and women’s football is just one example of the continued growth in grassroots sports in my constituency; my own daughter plays with the growing number of girls’ teams at Whitton Wanderers, and Twickenham Cygnets now boasts over 300 girls and has 40 women—Twickenham Swans—on its books. However, they are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the pitch space to train and play matches. This problem affects many clubs across the country, and certainly right across the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. At the same time, we have the absolute scandal of Udney Park playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for more than a decade, with successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be rightly prevented from developing it; that precious site has numerous protections attached to it.

The brilliant Udney Park Community Fields Foundation —a community group in my constituency led by Jonathan Dunn, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports—has repeatedly bid for the site to bring the playing fields back into community use. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell the playing fields, but has not engaged with the foundation at a realistic playing fields valuation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well-protected site does not look feasible. Extending the Bill’s provisions to playing fields to allow hope value to be disregarded for a compulsory purchase order could allow such sites to be acquired by the local authority or another public body.

Richmond council, like many other local authorities, is hardly awash with cash, but simply having that provision in law would provide leverage for community groups when they have to negotiate with developers, as we have seen in the case of Udney Park. I am certain that Udney Park is not the only example where this is happening. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Minister’s response to these amendments in Committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory. He rejected them on the following basis:

“Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2025; c. 489.]

I say that sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health, and he said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value.

Just yesterday, Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated that the Government

“are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sports across the UK.”

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made a brilliant speech last night at an event attended by many Members in this place to launch the inspirational Lionesses’ campaign to defend their European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sports and extending opportunity to every community. She has announced £100 million of investment in grassroots sports facilities, which is extremely welcome.

The change proposed through my amendments would help Ministers to achieve the important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny. It would not encroach on the principle that the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest, given that Ministers have so strongly and correctly championed the growth of grassroots sport across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendments would apply solely to land that is already sports field or recreational land, where there is local need for that sports and recreational facility and it is at risk of loss to speculative development.

It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply in such circumstances, so it defies all logic that Ministers have not embraced this change and that they continue to oppose it. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister. I hope he will at least commit to engaging further on this issue as the Bill moves to the other place. Perhaps he will meet me to discuss it, rather than dismissing it completely.

Let me turn to new clause 107, which is also in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the dire need for more housing across our country. The Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, so it was disappointing to see Labour Members vote against our amendment 15 last night to write a social housing target into law. One important way to secure sites for social and affordable housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies such as mine, with its royal park, a river and other important protected parks and spaces, sites are few and far between, yet week in, week out I see cases in my inbox and at my constituency surgeries of families on the social housing waiting list for years, with little hope of getting out of desperately overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation.

I am incredibly proud that Liberal Democrat-run Richmond council has consistently sought to repurpose, and sell below market value, sites that it owns but no longer needs to provide for more social homes from which families in my constituency can benefit. The council has done this despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly other public bodies do not feel able to do the same, whether they are national Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, key public services such as the Metropolitan police, or arm’s length bodies such as NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price as they can when selling assets that they no longer need in order to be able to invest in frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim, but it prices social housing providers, and other public service providers, out of the market, while losing assets from the public sector balance sheet at the same time.

New clause 107 would fill the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal in the public bodies included and is not properly used to allow all public sector bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit, whether that is for social housing or for much-needed community infrastructure like health facilities or a community centre. Not only would it extend that provision to all public bodies; it would go further still by imposing a duty on all public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good.

This wide-ranging new clause builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament, when I worked with a succession of Conservative Housing Ministers to secure a change in the then Bill, which became the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, that included police authorities under existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born of frustration about the fact that the disused Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. A local housing association and the Park Road GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor, as well as much-needed social housing on the floors above. This Government think that all members of the public are blockers, but I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign, and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market we can obtain the GP surgery and housing that our community desperately need at a reasonable price, which will almost certainly not be as high as private developers can offer.

I secured the legislative basis to achieve that ambition in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, but in many other cases the provision is not there or is not used. Furthermore, the amount below market value for which some public sector bodies can dispose of their assets has not been updated since 2003. New clause 107 seeks to address that anomaly, although I note that the Conservative Government made a commitment to consulting on and reviewing the amount—something that did not happen before they left office, and something that the present Government have not implemented since they took power last year.

The Chancellor herself has previously said that surplus Government land is a

“huge untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation of homeowners.”

I warmly welcomed the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for house building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land, but we need both the legislative basis for public sector disposals below market value and the incentives to achieve those sales. I do not blame the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for wanting to get top dollar for Teddington police station, especially when I read about the cuts that he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury when it comes to proper funding for the community policing that the Government have promised.

I say to Ministers that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies, and financial incentives from the Treasury for them to repurpose or sell their assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services that our country desperately needs, not by ripping up our green belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we repurpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Robbie Moore]

I rise to speak about new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name.

Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. Indeed, much of yesterday’s debate was taken up by discussion of precisely the new CPO powers that the Bill will grant to Natural England and local authorities. The fact that under the Bill a farmer in Keighley can be told how to use his land, on pain of a CPO, as a result of a development in Kent is complete and utter madness, but that is exactly the intention of the Bill. No matter where someone owns land, they may be put at detriment by a scheme that is taking place elsewhere. That is exactly what the Government intend to do through the additional CPO powers: to give Natural England—an organisation with which I have huge frustration and which, dare I say it, is not accountable robustly to a Minister—more power to use compulsory purchase orders.

[Wendy Morton]

I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations with Natural England. Does he agree that it is a bit strange that we have a Government who say they want to reduce the number of quangos, but who have reduced it by one and introduced 27? In this Bill, they are giving more powers to an unelected quango, which risks doing further untold damage to our green fields, our open spaces and our farmland.

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I am so frustrated by the intent of the Government’s Bill. It gives Natural England more compulsory purchase powers, more funds through environmental delivery plans, and an ability to scrutinise and, indeed, to dictate to landowners how their land or farm may be utilised. That is wrong, especially when, as I say, a farmer farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO as a result of a development elsewhere in the country.

The Government and I absolutely disagree on the right to use CPO, and I really struggle with the expansion of section 14A orders, which will allow an acquiring authority to discount the hope value of a seized property. Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property. So-called hope value is not a capitalist trick, a racket or unfair; it is simply the true market value of the property. That is why I fundamentally disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which entails the Government’s stipulating that hope value must be disregarded over and above the agricultural value that is to be paid. It should not be the law that decides the value of something; it should be down to negotiation and the market.

That brings me to fairness. Although I admire the Government’s aspiration to increase development, the Bill is fundamentally flawed on the issue of fairness, because it takes away the property rights of landowners—the very landowners who will have been encouraged by their local authorities to put forward their land to be zoned as part of a local plan, and encouraged through a service level agreement process to have their land zoned for housing, employment or whatever it may be. As a result of this piece of legislation, the local authority, or indeed Natural England, will have the ability to compulsorily acquire the land not at market value, but at agricultural value.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and which his amendment seeks to remove— I will come on to speak about it in more detail—were set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he voted for that Act? He voted for these powers.

[Robbie Moore]

But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.

Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the flaws of the Bill, which his amendments attempt to address, is that it overreaches not only in attacking property rights in this country and interfering with the market, but in taking away key aspects of democratic accountability? That is why so many of our constituents across the United Kingdom are so concerned about what the Bill attempts to do.

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his speech against all the things he voted for under the last Government, but I am confused by Opposition Members. Is there no limit to the amount of taxpayers’ money they would give to landowners, rather than to councils so that they can build social housing, roads and the other public facilities we need?

[Robbie Moore]

Here we have the Liberal Democrats setting out their position, and it is a good that they are doing so because I fundamentally believe that if a farmer owns land and the state seizes control of it through compulsory purchase powers, it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with the market value, not the agricultural value. I know the Liberal Democrats have set out their position that they fully support just agricultural value being paid, not what the land is really worth at market value, and I hope all farmers across the country understand the Liberal Democrat position, which is to disregard that hope value.

I want to know whether the Government have undertaken an impact assessment on the Valuation Office Agency. As we go through the compulsory purchase process, there will be many a challenge—quite rightly—by land agents or valuers acting on behalf of those many landowners to understand the true value of their land. I fear that the Valuation Office Agency will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny there will rightly be of the Government’s position.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend has set out some of the challenges the Bill presents for the farming community. Part 5 provides authorities with significant compulsory purchase powers, but with no definition or limits whatsoever. For our farming community, this all comes on top of the changes to agricultural property relief, business property relief and inheritance tax, and the increased national insurance for employers. What is it about the farming community that this Government do not like?

[Robbie Moore]

The farming community faces so much uncertainty not only as a result of the Bill, but because of all the additional pressures, whether it is the family farm tax or the increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year.

That is why my new clause 127 and amendment 153 —and, indeed, Opposition new clause 42—are so important. It is frustrating that the Government are just throwing out these amendments and are not willing to consider them, because they have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community and our landowners, so that the state does not have the control that this Government are willing to give it. I urge the Government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments to the Bill.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am happy to speak today in support of amendment 151, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Our planning system needs reform, but the approach the Government are taking in the Bill is sadly all wrong and desperately needs to be amended.

Amendment 151 would compel the Secretary of State to produce a report that addresses a key principle of my concern with the current house building regime, which is good design. I am pleased that in drafting clause 93, the Government have recognised that good design goes hand in hand with sustainable development, but we need to see evidence that the houses we are getting are actually being designed and built better if we are to be confident that we are not just getting more of the same from the big developers.

No one has ever told me that they want more energy-inefficient chocolate box homes, buried deep in rabbit warren estates and built to maximise developer profit. What we see too often in North Norfolk is homes that people do not like and cannot afford, but which they must queue up to buy because there is no other option. I was horrified recently to find that developers had put covenants on an entire estate to ban branded vehicles from parking on private driveways—they might as well have marketed those homes as for rich second home owners only. That is not how we want to design our communities of the future.

The Government are already taking steps towards good design by accepting the provisions of the sunshine Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), which mandates solar panels on new builds. It can sometimes seem that politicians ignore good ideas if they come from Opposition parties, so I am particularly pleased that the Government have come to share the Liberal Democrats’ view that having solar panels on new builds is just common sense.

It is not just about the homes themselves; good design is also about how and where we build new houses. People are growing tired, rightly, of estates that are designed around car use, rather than putting public transport or walking and cycling at the heart of design. We can encourage more people to walk or use public transport if we design developments in a way that makes it easy and attractive to do just that. When we use scheme design to encourage walking and cycling rather than car use, access to public transport rather than car parks, and routes that take people to town centres rather than bypasses, we see the benefits right across society: in reduced pressure on health services, in better natural environments and in more cohesive, resilient communities.

Good design will also support the second key aim that amendment 151 seeks to have the Government report on, which is tackling the climate emergency. It is simple: a development that means fewer fossil fuel-powered cars are required to be on the roads will be better for the planet than one that does not.

I do not think that people in North Norfolk are unreasonable in asking for developments to be affordable to buy or rent and sustainable and low cost to heat and power, and to feel connected to communities and not a burden on them. My constituents want to end the housing crisis, but they do not want it done through unaccountable, top-down targets. They want a design-led approach to planning and infrastructure development. I hope the Government hear our proposals to achieve that and support them today.